NEW WRIT

Ordered,
	That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant for the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the County Constituency of Dunfermline and West Fife in the room of Rachel Anne Squire, deceased.—[Hilary Armstrong.]

Oral Answers to Questions

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

The Secretary of State was asked—

Post Office

Desmond Swayne: If he will make a statement on the future of the Post Office.

Alan Johnson: Our ambition is for a publicly owned Royal Mail fully restored to good health and providing customers with an excellent service and its employees with rewarding employment.

Desmond Swayne: How is that ambition affected by the reality that the 4.5 million users of the Post Office card account are going to lose that service in 2010 when funding is withdrawn?

Alan Johnson: The present contract ends in 2010, as it was always intended to do. There need to be discussions between the Department for Work and Pensions and the Post Office to see how the situation will emerge post-2010.

David Drew: It is good to hear what my right hon. Friend says, but will he assure us that any ideas from the Post Office on creating share ownership among members, for example, will not be a form of back-door privatisation? It provides a crucial public service, which is vital to rural areas as well as urban Britain, and it is important that the Government stick to their manifesto commitment that it is a publicly owned service. Does he agree?

Alan Johnson: I do agree. I made an absolute, unequivocal commitment: we are not privatising Royal Mail. What we are looking at—it is not a huge issue in the scheme of things, incidentally, given the other problems that the Post Office faces—is whether we can develop an employee share trust, in which the employees can only sell the shares back into the trust, as part of a way of incentivising the work force. It is right that we should consider that and see the merits of it but without in any way making it a route towards privatisation.

Owen Paterson: There are 8,000 rural sub-post offices serving 12 million customers a week. If the card account is to die in 2010, the time that it will have existed will be shorter than the time it took to set up. The Government have already removed £400 million from rural post offices. What is the timetable for possibly renewing the card? Who will be consulted? When will the Minister make a proper statement in the House on this huge issue?

Alan Johnson: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will congratulate the Government on what we have done for rural post offices. The simple problem that we face is this: years ago, the only place someone could buy a stamp, post a parcel or collect a pension was through the post office, but since the Conservatives rightly introduced the ability for people to receive their pensions and benefits by direct payment, there has been a slow decline of post offices, with 3,000 rural post offices closing between 1979 and 1997.
	Rather than death by a thousand cuts for the post office network, we have tried to get a grip of the problem by ensuring that it has a properly computerised network and by introducing a £150 million subsidy of taxpayers money every year to protect the rural network to allow it to make the transition from the old days, when it was the only place people could buy a stamp and collect a pension, to the 21st century, when only 23 people a week use the 800 smallest rural post offices and every customer who uses them leads to a £6 loss. That is a problem that serious politicians have to tackle in a serious way. That is what we will attempt to do.

Gisela Stuart: Is the Secretary of State satisfied that, with the closure and rationalisation programme for rural and urban post offices advancing so fast in areas like mine in Harborne, where people queue for almost an hour to use the local post office, the Post Office has a grip on how best to organise itself?

Alan Johnson: The starting point for getting a grip on the problem was the report by the performance and innovation unit, welcomed on both sides of the House, in 1999–2000. It said that there was a serious problem with the rural network, which required Government protection, but for the urban network—6,000 post offices—it was for the Post Office to deal with the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters to find a way in which sub-postmasters could make a decent living. The simple fact was that there were too many post offices in urban areas for sub-postmasters to make a decent living. Members on both sides of the House thought that the report was excellent. Those discussions took place, and the NFSP and the Post Office agreed to urban rationalisation. As a result, 2,500 urban post offices closed, but 99 per cent. of the population are still within 1 mile of a post office. I regret the fact that that may have caused problems in my hon. Friend's constituency, but I think that it was the right thing to do, painful though it was. Governments have to make painful decisions when looking at a problem on the scale faced by the post office network.

Charles Hendry: We have always regarded the Secretary of State as somebody who is in touch with the common people right across the country, but he seems to be missing a trick. What he has suggested is death by a thousand cuts, as 4,000 post offices have closed in the past eight years, which is more than the number that closed in the previous 20 years. There is serious concern about the future of the network. It has been suggested that car tax should be renewed online; the Government have set up passport offices, which will lead to a £12 million loss for post offices; and the future of the post office card account is at risk. Does he not understand that small post offices are the core of their local communities, and if they go, a valuable part of the local community goes as well?

Alan Johnson: I struggle to find a suggested policy different from our own. Yes, post offices have closed—I have just explained why 2,500 closed—but not a single rural post office has closed unless it has been impossible to find a sub-postmaster or impossible to find a venue for the post office. Otherwise, there is a system of no avoidable closures, and the Government have introduced £150 million of subsidy every year, because we recognise that post offices are an essential part of the country's social fabric. However, that does not mean that they have a right to exist if people are not using them. The crucial issue is how we can find new areas of work for the Post Office. We have had some success, but there is still further to go.

Alan Reid: People can only use post offices if the Government give business to them. All that we hear is bad news. Passport business has been taken away from the Post Office, and vehicle excise duty has been encouraged to go online, and thus away from the Post Office. The guaranteed no-avoidable-closures policy ends this year. When will the Government do something practical to help to keep rural post offices open by giving them more business?

Alan Johnson: Dear, dear, dear. The hon. Gentleman said that we have only ever heard bad news. We spent £500 million under project Horizon computerising every single post office in the country. We set up the universal banking facility, and 21 million customers can now access their current account through the Post Office. The Post Office is now the biggest user of bureaux de change in the country and, incidentally, it plays a huge role in online shopping. There is good news in abundance, and Opposition politicians ought to look for it, as a genuine transformation is taking place under this Government.

MG Rover Taskforce

Richard Burden: What assessment he has made of the work of the MG Rover taskforce.

Alan Johnson: The MG Rover taskforce worked extremely well co-ordinating the response to the collapse of MG Rover. By 10 January, 3,587 ex-employees from MG Rover and its supply chain identified by Jobcentre Plus had found new jobs. 1,922 have received training and of these 966 have now found jobs. The wage replacement scheme has saved 1,329 jobs from 170 companies in the supply chain.

Richard Burden: May I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply, and add my tribute to colleagues on the taskforce and in the agencies involved for the great amount that they have achieved since the company collapsed? However, does he agree that there are still many individuals without jobs, particularly among people living closest to the Longbridge plant? There is an urgent need to regenerate south-west Birmingham and the surrounding areas. As the taskforce will produce its final report in the not-too-distant future, does he share my concern that there must be a clear strategy to pursue the ongoing task with monitoring mechanisms so that we can all be clear who is responsible for what and to make sure that they carry out their responsibilities properly?

Alan Johnson: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend. His work at the Longbridge plant has been exceptional. The work that he has done with the taskforce and with local communities is applauded, as I know from my visits to the community. As to what happens next, we provided a three-year plan and money to go with it. I am well aware that despite the statistics that I just gave, which are very encouraging nine months on, there is an awful lot left to do. In the area around the plant, to which my hon. Friend referred, there is a problem of a serious fear of long-term unemployment creeping in. I am advised by the taskforce that it is concentrating attention now on piloting an employability support package to help those most vulnerable to long-term unemployment, specifically in the area that my hon. Friend mentions. I agree that we need a programme for the rest of the three-year project so that we attack the real areas of deprivation and the core problems around the Longbridge plant.

Daniel Kawczynski: I, too, should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) on the tremendous work that he has done. However, the impact of the closure has affected many areas outside Birmingham, including in Shrewsbury. I have met companies and individuals who continue to be affected by the closure. Will the Secretary of State give me an assurance that he is monitoring the help that places outside Birmingham get from the taskforce?

Alan Johnson: I will give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. The regional development agency, Jobcentre Plus, the learning and skills council and Birmingham city council, which I know is not his area—all those participants in the task force—are well aware that the problem has ramifications further away from Longbridge. We will be looking at Shrewbury and other areas that are more peripheral to the Longbridge plant. That is an essential part of the taskforce's work.

Brian Iddon: The first car that I ever bought was a second-hand Issigonis-designed Mini. I have driven cars from that group of companies all my life until my present car, which is an MG ZT. I can tell my right hon. Friend that that is the finest car that I have ever driven, so I am saddened at the demise of MG Rover. My concern is that the finest engineering skills that we have in Britain should be preserved in the engineering industry. How much success has the taskforce had in securing engineering jobs for the excellent engineers who were working in that group?

Alan Johnson: I would always buy a second-hand car from my hon. Friend. One of the great successes of the taskforce, although perhaps it did not take a great deal of effort, was that within two months of the closure of Longbridge, 1,600 highly skilled engineers had been found jobs with other companies, such as Airbus. Highly skilled manufacturing jobs came to Longbridge very quickly. The problem is not with the highly skilled engineers, but with the less highly skilled workers who need to be retrained. It may take longer to find them jobs, but highly skilled engineers were quickly hoovered up.

Alan Duncan: Anything that can be done by the taskforce to alleviate the hardship caused to so many people by the collapse of Rover can only be welcomed. What lessons have the Government learned from that whole sorry saga? What is their estimate of the number of people who would have had a substantial payout instead of the next to nothing that they now have, had the right hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mr. Byers) not intervened and forced through the wrong deal for Rover six years ago?

Alan Johnson: Once again—this has been rehearsed a few times—hindsight gives us the benefit of 20:20 vision. I do not remember anybody from any part of the House being anything other than congratulatory when the Phoenix company stepped in to rescue volume production at Longbridge. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) says from a sedentary position that he was critical, but that was probably on the basis that there was an alternative. I think that that is the gist of his argument. May I remind him that the Government had nothing to do with Alchemy dropping off the scene? Alchemy could not reach agreement with BMW. That is why there was no other option.

Alan Duncan: In my recollection—we were opposite numbers at the time—that most definitely is not the case. The Alchemy proposal would have provided many in the Rover work force with up to £80,000 in redundancy payments and given the company a good chance of long-term survival as a niche manufacturer. The taskforce exists because the previous Secretary of State intervened just before a general election and deluded people into thinking that it was a good deal, but those people now have no company, no job and no pension. Would the Secretary of State have done the same as his predecessor?

Alan Johnson: I shall put it on the record once again: Alchemy could not reach agreement with BMW and there was no Government intervention whatsoever. When we considered the opportunity to keep volume car production at Longbridge and save 6,000 jobs, no hon. Member stood up and said, "We should asset-strip Rover and put the workers out of work—they will have a big package." No one knew what was to come in five or six years' time, so I think that it was worth the effort to try to keep jobs at Longbridge. What has happened—it is turning into a saga—is fully on the public record: the National Audit Office is reporting on the matter; I have referred it under the Companies Act 1989; and the Trade and Industry Committee is investigating. I would be surprised if any of those bodies reach any conclusion other than that my right hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside (Mr. Byers) did the right thing at the time.

Lindsay Hoyle: I was a member of the Select Committee at that time, and Alchemy's evidence was clear: it said that a big Rover organisation had no future and that the way forward was small production of MG sports cars for a limited market. The rest of the company would have been sold off and developed, which would not have saved jobs. Does the Secretary of State agree that Phoenix was the only real deal on the table?

Alan Johnson: I agree completely with my hon. Friend, who has put my point from a different perspective—that of the Select Committee.

UK Aerospace Industry

David Borrow: What action his Department is taking to improve the international competitiveness of the UK aerospace industry.

Barry Gardiner: In 2003, the aerospace innovation and growth team report set out the Government's vision for the UK aerospace industry. We aim to improve all aspects of the industry's productivity and competitiveness. We have drawn up and are implementing the national aerospace technology strategy; we have set up the national composites network and supported it with investment of £30 million; and we are developing the sustainable aviation strategy.

David Borrow: Does my hon. Friend agree that the British aerospace industry would be even better and more competitive if agreement could be reached to get rid of unfair subsidies and trade barriers? Will he tell me what his Department is doing to achieve that objective?

Barry Gardiner: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's tremendous work as chair of the all-party group on aerospace. He has highlighted a major issue for the industry. He knows that the UK is regarded as one of the most open markets in the world when it comes to aerospace and particularly aerospace defence equipment, and European and international defence markets must open up so that our world-class defence manufacturers can compete overseas on a level playing field. I welcome the announcement of the European Defence Agency's voluntary code of conduct, which is aimed at making procurement across member states more transparent and open. The DTI will continue to work with the MOD to open up overseas markets for UK suppliers.

Peter Luff: Does the Minister share my growing suspicion that the interests of this large, complex and vital manufacturing industry would be better served if more of them were looked after at a national level rather than being fragmented into the regional development agency network?

Barry Gardiner: No; I do not share that suspicion. The regional development agencies have a key development role working with regional suppliers, which is happening not only in the north-west, where my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr Borrow) has an interest, but in Yeovil and other parts of the country.

Ashok Kumar: I agree with my hon. Friend that, thanks to the skills that we have, our aerospace industry is one of the most successful industries in the world. What is he doing to ensure that we maintain those skills in future by attracting the brightest engineers and scientists? What discussions has he had with the Secretary of State for Education and Skills in that regard?

Barry Gardiner: My hon. Friend raises some interesting points. The thrust of this is the way in which we develop this industry and remain at the cutting edge. He should take heart from the fact that we have been so innovative in setting up the composites network, with £30 million of Government investment and research and development going in, matched by the industry. We are working together to ensure that the very best scientists are attracted into this area—an area where their future lies, because the future of the whole aviation and defence industry lies there as well.

Nicholas Winterton: BAE Systems is a very important employer on the periphery of my constituency—it has a plant at Woodford. We also have part of the supply chain in Poynton—Senior Engineering, which produces lightweight ducting and air conditioning equipment for the industry. Its future is in jeopardy because of what I, and many in the industry, describe as excessive air pollution regulation. Is the Minister prepared to meet me with a representative of the company to discuss the problems that it faces and the fact that it is in jeopardy as a result of these excessive and unnecessary regulations?

Barry Gardiner: I would of course be very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman, who has a fine record as a constituency MP and somebody of great knowledge in this area. It is important that we continue our work with the Department for Transport in looking at sustainable aviation into the future. That is part of the environmental commitment that Labour Members share; I understand that the Conservatives are now joining us. It is important that we look to a sustainable future for aviation, and environmental standards must be at the forefront of that. I will happily meet the hon. Gentleman and any delegation that he wishes to bring.

Regional Development Agencies

John Pugh: Whether there is a code of conduct for members of regional development agencies.

Alun Michael: Yes, indeed. Each of England's regional development agencies has in place a code of conduct for its staff and board members.

John Pugh: I thank the Minister for that brief response. Given that MPs and councillors are governed by very strict rules, that huge sums of public money are spent by RDAs, and that agency members often belong to organisations that benefit from RDA money, does he agree that transparency is important; and if so, why are not all project-specific details of their spending plans put into the public domain?

Alun Michael: I am not sure what particular issue the hon. Gentleman is getting at. As I said, there are detailed codes of conduct that exclude individuals from applications or issues that affect their interests. They follow the guidance of the Cabinet Office and are taken very seriously by board members, as I know from many discussions. The general point of my answer is that there are very strict codes in each of the RDAs, but if the hon. Gentleman has anything more specific in mind, perhaps he would like to raise it with me,

Rob Marris: Part of the reason for having a code of conduct is to ensure that members of RDAs act with propriety. If we go for a deduction-at-source approach, what are the Government doing to ensure that people who are appointed to RDAs know what they are doing and act with transparency and propriety?

Alun Michael: The method of appointing members of RDA boards means that, in accordance with best practice, their capacity to provide leadership to the organisation is scrutinised very carefully to ensure that they can bring to bear their experience not only in business but in local government and social enterprise in order to provide inspiration, leadership and challenge to the employees of the organisation. We are bringing in an independent performance assessment that, from this year, will examine the quality of the organisations in delivering on the very ambitious objectives that we have set for them.

John Redwood: Will the Minister strengthen the code of conduct in two ways? First, will he control unnecessary expenditure to stop RDAs wasting money and going to the glossy brochure industry too often? Secondly, will he stop them misrepresenting the views of local communities that do not want their attentions and whose views are much better represented by Members of Parliament and councillors? So often, RDAs say the opposite and they are wrong. Will the right hon. Gentleman strengthen the code of conduct?

Alun Michael: If the code of conduct needed to be strengthened, we would be happy to consider that, but with the right hon. Gentleman's past of sending back money that would have benefited communities and the economy in Wales, it ill behoves him to examine the performance of regional development agencies. We have encouraged RDAs to work as a team and they have done some good work, not duplicating each other, to address rural development and many other issues together. The right hon. Gentleman's criticism is overdone.

Barry Sheerman: Will my right hon. Friend take some of the negative comments that we have heard with a large measure of salt? Does he acknowledge that most of the people who devote themselves to RDAs have done a good job over the years? I find Yorkshire Forward to be a leading and thrusting organisation in our region. Transparency is always appropriate and useful and I should like more transparency and in that regard, RDAs perform better than others. However, by and large, the men and women who put such effort into RDAs should be complimented, not criticised.

Alun Michael: The independent performance assessment, which starts this year, will provide the sort of comparison that my hon. Friend seeks, not least because it will encourage learning from each other—peer review—as an important part of the process. I have   been impressed by some of Yorkshire Forward's work. I was recently in Sheffield to look at some of the high technology manufacturing examples. That was extremely impressive and relevant to some of the issues that have been raised about the need to equip our industries to compete in the world.

Energy Price Rises

Mary Creagh: What steps he is taking to reduce the impact of energy price rises on small and medium-sized businesses.

Malcolm Wicks: Rising energy prices are a global phenomenon but the current construction of new pipelines and liquefied natural gas terminals will significantly boost gas supply over the coming year or two.
	For small and medium-sized enterprises, my Department has organised a seminar with Energywatch to share best practice on purchasing strategy. Several energy efficiency measures have been developed to help SMEs reduce their demand for energy.

Mary Creagh: I thank the Minister for his correspondence on the problems faced by the Brotherton chemical company, which employs 50 people in Wakefield. It has suffered the double whammy of its gas prices doubling in the past two years and a 50 per cent. increase in the price of its raw materials. Has he had any response from Ofgem on its inquiries to the European Commission about why the gas interconnector has not been flowing at its full capacity when demand is so high in this country? Does he share the industry's concerns that the unusual—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that the hon. Lady is a new Member, but one supplementary is fine.

Malcolm Wicks: I understand the concerns of the Brotherton company and others in the chemicals sector—a bigger company is Ineos Chlor—about the rising costs of energy. We are working closely with the industry to do our best in the short, medium and long-term. I have not yet heard from Ofgem about any response to its proper inquiry and its serious questions about the workings of the interconnector. Although gas is flowing into Britain through the interconnector, the overall performance has been disappointing and it is right that Ofgem is asking serious questions.

Peter Bone: Does the Minister agree that the forward electricity price in this country has been 60 per cent. higher than in Europe? Is that due to the fact that the European Union has not properly liberalised the energy market?

Malcolm Wicks: We need to consider price carefully. I recognise the pain that rising prices cause both the domestic customer and industry but, compared with continental Europe, especially France and Germany, our prices for most businesses and domestic customers are lower than the European average. However, for intensive users, such as Brotherton, the prices are higher, not least because those companies are purchasing over a relatively short period, sometimes on the spot market. That is their commercial judgment, which is difficult to make. We are doing our best, not least when the UK had the presidency of the European Union up to December, to push market liberalisation. I am impressed by the European Commission's determination to press that forward as quickly as possible.

Russell Brown: Small and medium-sized enterprises are the lifeblood of rural economies. I have a plastics recycling company in my constituency that feels greatly disadvantaged by current energy prices. Will my hon. Friend meet representatives of that company who have grave concerns that they are now at a disadvantage compared with some of their competitors on the continent?

Malcolm Wicks: Of course I will. Indeed, the Secretary of State and I have met many representatives of such intensive energy users across a range of industries. I would welcome such a meeting. There is an uncertain correlation between gas supply and price. This winter, despite some people predicting otherwise, we have gas supply, with plenty in storage at the moment, yet prices have been a serious problem. In the longer term, new liquefied natural gas terminals that could provide one fifth of our annual needs will come on stream and pipelines in Norway and the Netherlands that could provide up to one third of our annual gas needs will open. The supply situation should then ease and I hope that that will have an impact on price.

Nigel Dodds: This morning, Phoenix Natural Gas, the main gas supplier in Northern Ireland, announced a 17.5 per cent. increase in its gas price, which brings the overall gas price increase in Northern Ireland to 52 per cent. in just a couple of months. That will obviously have a major impact on small and medium-sized businesses and domestic consumers. Does the Minister agree that such increases over such a short time are unacceptable and that something needs to be done about it?

Malcolm Wicks: The prices are high and they are rising globally, in Europe, and in the United Kingdom. I am not complacent about that. We have a market economy in relation to price. I am interested in practical ideas about what can be done, given the market constraints. The task of the Government has been to ensure that we are in the best possible position this winter in terms of maintenance of the infrastructure and the North sea oil rigs, of talking to the supply companies—which we did throughout the spring and summer—and of ensuring that the new pipelines and liquefied natural gas terminals come on stream as fast as possible. We are doing all that, and that is the task of the Government, in my judgment.

John Grogan: Given the Chancellor's statement in the pre-Budget report that the owners of the gas interconnector must either use or lose the facility, is there not now a strong case for insisting on third-party access to the interconnector to widen the options for companies when negotiating gas contracts?

Malcolm Wicks: While I am mindful of the fact that the interconnector is a privately owned facility, with the companies that put up the investment for it holding shares in it, I believe that it is in Europe's and the United Kingdom's interests that it should be used at full capacity, and that, with Ofgem, we need to investigate the idea.

Anne McIntosh: Is the Minister aware that, in the third quarter of last year, average electricity prices rose by more than 27 per cent? That was due in large part to the climate change levy. Does he realise that the levy is impacting even more harshly on small and medium-sized companies than on others? What do the Government propose to do about that?

Malcolm Wicks: This is the issue: we share a common concern about rising prices, but we also share a common concern about our planet and about global warming. The task for energy policy is to have adequate energy supply at affordable prices for business and the householder, while going in for cleaner and greener energy. I understand that Conservative Front Benchers are now foremost in presenting themselves as the cleaner and greener party—they are signing up to all sorts of things in their dash for popularity—so I am sure that we are in agreement on this issue. However, I understand the pain that higher prices are causing.

Manufacturing

John Robertson: What steps his Department is taking to assist UK manufacturing to compete with China, India and other developing countries.

Alun Michael: The Government are helping UK manufacturing to rise to the challenge of globalisation. A successful and dynamic UK manufacturing sector, in which we should take great pride, is being helped to compete in world markets by our manufacturing strategy. That is helping companies to move to high value-added production to meet the challenge through the application of science and innovation, world-class practice and skills development.

John Robertson: I thank my right hon. Friend for his comprehensive answer and for the support given to manufacturing industry by this Government. Most fair and knowledgeable people will accept that it is almost impossible for this country to keep up with China and India in low-value, low-skill and high-volume products. Will he redouble his efforts on research and development grants and impress on manufacturing industry the need not only to invest in equipment but in skills and training?

Alun Michael: My hon. Friend packs a lot into his sensible comments about the challenge that faces us. We should remember that China and India, in being ambitious for the growth of their markets, also create a market in which we should be ambitious to compete. Certainly, investment decisions and manufacturers' planning could be helped through the manufacturing advisory service. Skills development can complement that. Even the smallest firms can access help from the Department for Education and Skills and the Learning and Skills Council through the local Business Link, and initiatives such as the manufacturing academy will help considerably at the high-skill end. I agree with much of what he said in his question.

Mark Prisk: Despite the Minister's good intentions, the ability of British industry to compete is being held back by the Treasury. Business is now paying an extra £50 billion in tax each year and manufacturing investments are frustrated by a complex tax system that the Chancellor constantly changes. It is no wonder that productivity growth per worker is just one fifth of what it was in 1997. Will the Minister, in his role as a business advocate in Government, stand up to the Treasury and tell the Chancellor to stop tinkering with the tax system and give manufacturers what they want: a simple, certain fiscal environment in which they can invest for the future? Will he stand up for business against the Treasury?

Alun Michael: Will the hon. Gentleman stand up to his leader? It is obvious that Conservative Members, rather than asking questions about trade and industry, are under a three-line Whip to attack the Chancellor. It was the Chancellor who provided £30 million of Government funding that has enabled the manufacturing advisory service to generate £188 million in added value for over 3,000 companies. The hon. Gentleman should praise both the Department of Trade and Industry and the Treasury.

Keith Vaz: Is there not another side to the story? As the Minister for Trade's visit to India has shown, there is a great deal of inward investment from India and China into the United Kingdom. In fact, that inward investment might exceed the investment of our country into countries such as India. Is not that good for British jobs? Should not we see China and India as partners in the new global economy?

Alun Michael: My hon. Friend is right. It should be seen as an opportunity, especially given the contacts of many of this country's business people whose roots and ethnic origin are in, for instance, India. The link that they have made and the creativity that they bring to bear is providing a real impetus in parts of our industry and commerce and should be welcomed.

Doha Development Round

Tony Baldry: What progress has been made following the road map for a final agreement to the Doha development round agreed to in Hong Kong, with particular reference to the promotion of a pro-development agenda within the negotiations.

Alan Johnson: The World Trade Organisation ministerial meeting in December set a deadline of the end of April for modalities and the end of July for tariff schedules. As work recommences in the new year, strong political will and hard work will be needed to achieve those deadlines. Later this month, the World Economic Forum in Davos and associated trade meetings will provide the first opportunity for the major players to define their ambitions for the year and to set out a path to April. As discussions continue, the UK is especially keen that developing countries should be involved in both formal and informal discussions at every stage, because we are strongly committed to a pro-development outcome.

Tony Baldry: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. As he will know, the European Union spends each year some €64 billion on trade-distorting subsidies, which is really a conspiracy against the poor. Effectively, is not the situation that, until we see reform of the common agricultural policy and France removes its objections to CAP reform, we will not make any progress on Doha? We are caught in a double bluff, with the European Union unwilling to move on agricultural reform and the United States not moving until Europe moves, and cotton-producing countries and everyone else trapped in the middle. What does the Secretary of State think, in his heart, will happen between now and April? Should we not acknowledge that we must establish a much more rigorous process to take us up to 2013?

Alan Johnson: The hon. Gentleman talks a lot of sense. The discussions are bogged down in agriculture chiefly because of the protectionist instincts of some, although not all, European Union member states. Now that we are free of our presidency mantle, we can work on that.
	As for whether we need a change in the common agricultural policy, we came away from Hong Kong with an agreement that all export subsidies would be eliminated by 2013, and that we would make substantial progress by 2010, the half-way stage. That, combined with a number of other factors, will help us to ensure that there is a proper pro-development outcome, which of necessity will require us to look at the CAP again.

Paddy Tipping: An important but complex process must be resolved over a short period. Does my right hon. Friend accept that not just agriculture issues, but the opening up of services, are important in this context? Is there not a possibility of some trade-off involving those two modalities?

Alan Johnson: My hon. Friend mentioned the time scale. Pascal Lamy, director general of the World Trade Organisation, believes that we came away from Hong Kong—which was not a roaring success, but the train is still on the track, which could not be said of Seattle and Cancun—having taken ourselves 60 per cent. of the way to our objective.
	My hon. Friend is right. We must start to resolve the dilemma of European Union member states that are protectionist on agriculture but wish to experience the benefits of opening up industry and services. We must convince them of the value of a win-win opportunity: a win for developing countries as we help to deal with the fact that a fifth of the world's population live on less than a dollar a day and also a boost to the world economy.

John Bercow: Given that Benin, Burkina Faso, Mali and Chad depend on cotton for between 30 and 40 per cent. of their export earnings, is it not a scandal that the United States, the most powerful nation in the world, continues to spend $4 billion a year on subsidising 25,000 high-cost, inefficient but politically influential cotton producers, thereby exacerbating the plight of some of the poorest people on the planet? Is it not still the case that the United States needs to understand that with power comes responsibility?

Alan Johnson: The hon. Gentleman, who was in Hong Kong and was very active there, makes a valid point. It is indeed a scandal. The WTO is due to rule on the matter, so the United States is subject to a WTO ruling against it on cotton. Although the United States made some small concessions in Hong Kong, cotton was the reason why Cancun failed completely, and it cannot be allowed to be the reason why the Doha development round failed completely. It must be sorted out.

Welsh Companies (International Market)

Chris Bryant: What assistance his Department has given to companies in Wales to build their international market in each of the last three years.

Alun Michael: Companies in Wales have access to UK Trade and Investment's services and support, as well as to WalesTrade International as the lead organisation supporting international trade in Wales. I will put in the House of Commons Library full details of the support given to Welsh companies over the last three years as soon as the information has been collated, as well as giving the information directly to my hon. Friend.

Chris Bryant: The Minister may know that the average small or medium-sized company in Wales is far less likely to have an international market of any kind than its counterpart elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Will he work as closely as possible with the Welsh Development Agency and his counterpart in the Welsh Assembly to ensure that, as the WDA is folded into the Welsh Assembly Government, no Welsh firm is left out in the cold when the DTI offers marketing opportunities through international trade organisations?

Alun Michael: We work closely with colleagues at the Welsh Assembly Government. I am sure that my hon. Friend would applaud, as I do, the fact that WalesTrade International was funded through objective 1, whose continuation through to 2013 has been assured as a result of the Prime Minister's success in achieving agreement on the European budget. That gives us an opportunity to see a continuation of that success. It is worth pointing out that Welsh exports for the year up to and including the third quarter of 2005 were up 9.3 per cent., which is above the average for the English regions. I share my hon. Friend's wish to see that success continue.

Adam Price: What overall share of DTI assistance does Wales get in this area? Does the Minister believe that the balance of trade between Wales and the rest of the world is in surplus, or is it in record deficit, like that of the rest of the United Kingdom?

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman brings his unique brand of pessimism to every question he asks. He may have missed my earlier answer, in which I indicated the growth in exports from Wales, a success that we wish to continue. I am surprised that he did not take the opportunity to congratulate the Government, the Prime Minister and the Welsh Assembly Government on their success in providing objective 1 support not only for the communities of mid and west Wales but for the development of business and trade.

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

The Minister for Women was asked—

Engineering Apprenticeships

Ian Lucas: What proportion of engineering apprenticeships in England are being undertaken by women.

Tessa Jowell: Learning and Skills Council figures show a small increase in the number of women taking up engineering apprenticeships, from 2.6 per cent. in 2002 to 2.7 per cent. in 2005, so the House will understand that I remain concerned that engineering, in which there is a skills shortage, is still not attracting young women in significant numbers.

Ian Lucas: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the biggest hurdles is the fact that young people's perception of engineering is still outmoded? In my constituency, modern engineering sectors such as renewable energy would be well advanced through more women being involved.

Tessa Jowell: My hon. Friend is right. That is why we are addressing our efforts to increasing the level of information and understanding among young women in schools and in higher and further education, and to examining how job opportunities and apprenticeships are marketed. That is why we have made a significant investment in the UK Resource Centre for Women in Science, Engineering and Technology, which is addressing precisely those matters.

Sandra Gidley: The Minister will be aware of Learn Direct, an adult apprenticeship scheme aimed at attracting the over-25s into non-traditional careers. The Learning and Skills Council's first evaluation highlighted that, in engineering and construction, not a single place went to a woman. What will she do to address that spectacular failure?

Tessa Jowell: That is indicative of precisely the attitudinal problem that exists. It is not just that that shuts women out of potentially satisfying and significant jobs and careers, but there is a skills shortage in this sector of the labour market. Any sector of the labour market that fails to attract the talent of more than half the population will find itself in trouble. The women and work commission will publish its report shortly. We will look carefully at the practical recommendations of that important commission, led by Margaret Prosser, to help us to take more aggressive action to deal with the problem that the hon. Lady and the figures that I gave the House earlier identify.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: The problem with the enrolment of women in engineering has not just arisen now but has been there for centuries. We, including the Department, are taking huge action to address that problem. There are two possible further opportunities that need to be considered, and I ask my right hon. Friend to look into them. First, the UK resource centre is indeed outstanding—it is under our Government that we have achieved that great step forward—but it only looks after graduate women. I would like its portfolio to be extended to include apprenticeships and appealing to girls under 16. The second area—

Mr. Speaker: Order. One area is fine. There is no need for a second.

Tessa Jowell: My hon. Friend has a distinguished record of advocacy in this area. I thank her for that, and I shall take her suggestions seriously. We are absolutely determined that young women will take their rightful place, and that the barriers to their choosing certain careers are removed wherever possible. Another clear example of the difference between the Government's approach and that of other parties in the House is the fact that we believe that only by taking purposeful action, not by leaving things to chance, will we make progress.

Sole Traders (East Midlands)

David Taylor: What estimate she has made of the number of (a) female and (b) male sole traders in east midlands businesses on 1 January.

Meg Munn: The most recently available data show that there were 53,000 female and 144,000 male self-employed people without employees in the east midlands in summer 2005. Data for January 2006 will be available from the Office for National Statistics in spring 2006.

David Taylor: A decade ago, as a freelance accountant, I supported numerous small businesses in the east midlands, many run by women and concentrated in high-competition, low-profit industries. Then, as now, female entrepreneurs faced even more acute start-up difficulties than men—problems of finance, advice and, critically, of self-belief. What does the Minister believe is the role of the regional development agencies in helping women to surmount those chronic and crucial hurdles?

Meg Munn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question, because the regional development agencies are key to this process, and we seek to ensure that they all address the issue of women moving into self-employment and business. I am delighted that the East Midlands Development Agency is taking that matter particularly seriously, and has developed an action plan and specific proposals to address those issues, which, as my hon. Friend rightly says, include access to finance, the problems of caring and domestic relationships and, crucially, business advice that recognises the particular challenges that face women moving into self-employment.

Philip Hollobone: Will the Minister congratulate Pauline Goodman, the project leader of Business4Women, run by the Kettering Business Venture Trust? She is doing marvellous work to encourage local business women to network and develop their businesses.

Meg Munn: I am delighted to congratulate the hon. Gentleman's constituent. Such organisations are important and there is now a range of networks throughout the country, supported by Prowess, which is promoting women's enterprise support. Having that support, with other people to talk to and ways forward, is making a real difference to women running businesses on the ground.

Pensions

Tony Lloyd: What estimate she has made of the percentage of women retired and due to retire in the next 10 years who have not accrued the right to a full basic state pension.

Meg Munn: Figures from the Government Actuary's Department show that in 2005–06, 30 per cent. of women reaching state pension age are entitled to a full basic state pension, and the forecast is that in 10 years' time, by 2015, 70 per cent. of women reaching state pension age will have full basic state pension entitlement.

Tony Lloyd: Anyone in the House would have to give credit to the Government for introducing the pension credit, which has made a real difference to pensioner poverty. Nevertheless, the figures that the Minister has just given demonstrate that poverty among pensioners is still a real issue, particularly for women, and that that will continue for the foreseeable future. Do we in this generation have the political will to take action and do something serious about women's pensions, both to get things right for this generation of pensioners and to establish a future framework that will guarantee women proper pensions into the long-term future?

Meg Munn: I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for the work that he has done in promoting this crucial issue. The figures show that changes are taking place, and that the introduction of home responsibilities protection and the fact that more women are now working is narrowing the gap between men and women. However, the crucial issue for the future is women's private pensions. We need to ensure that, as part of the debate surrounding the Turner report, the private pensions issue is tackled. Although we are beginning to address it and are witnessing changes to the state pension, that issue is still very much on the agenda.

Eleanor Laing: I appreciate what the Minister is saying about private pensions and state pensions, but the Government's real responsibility lies in dealing with state pensions. The last time that we discussed this issue, the Minister for Women did not undertake to persuade the Chancellor of the merits of the Turner report, or of the real importance of putting right the scandalous way in which women pensioners are being treated, as the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd) just pointed out. Will the Minister undertake to persuade the Minister for Women to persuade the Chancellor that this matter is urgent and should not be kicked into the long grass? Women pensioners are poor now and need help now.

Meg Munn: I am sorry that the consensual discussion that I normally have with the hon. Lady seems to have gone out the window. I wonder where that is coming from. The reality is that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Women supports discussion of the Turner report; in fact, she promoted its launch. We should remember that it was this Government who, through the pension credit, corrected the absolute poverty that many women lived in before we came to power.

Business of the House

Theresa May: May I ask the Leader of the House to give the House the business for the following week?

Geoff Hoon: The business for next week will be as follows:
	Monday 23 January—Consideration in Committee of the Government of Wales Bill.
	Tuesday 24 January—Continuation of consideration in Committee of the Government of Wales Bill.
	Wednesday 25 January—Second Reading of the Merchant Shipping (Pollution) Bill [Lords].
	Thursday 26 January—Remaining stages of the Criminal Defence Service Bill [Lords], followed by motion to take note of the outstanding reports of the Public Accounts Committee to which the Government have replied. Details will be given in the Official Report.
	Friday 27 January—The House will not be sitting.
	The provisional business for the following week will be:
	Monday 30 January—Conclusion of consideration in Committee of the Government of Wales Bill.
	Tuesday 31 January—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill, followed by a debate on pensions on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	Wednesday 1 February—Opposition Day [12th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
	Thursday 2 February—A debate on defence procurement on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	Friday 3 February—The House will not be sitting.
	It may also assist the House if I inform Members that a revised calendar is now available in the Vote Office.
	[The following is the information: 17th and the 20th to the 52nd Reports of the Committee of Public Accounts of Session 2003–04, the 1st to the 30th Reports of the Committee of Public Accounts of Session 2004–05, and the 1st to the 3rd, the 5th and the 6th Reports and the First Special Report of the Committee of Public Accounts of Session 2005–06, and of the Treasury Minutes and the Northern Ireland Department of Finance and Personnel Memoranda on these Reports (Cm 6271, 6283, 6302, 6303, 6304, 6332, 6355, 6416, 6441, 6458, 6468, 6496, 6577, 6578, 6579, 6609, 6667, 6668, 6682, 6689 and 6712).]

Theresa May: Can the Leader of the House tell us why the Merchant Shipping (Pollution) Bill has taken precedence over the Childcare Bill, which was originally to be brought to the House next week? Will he ensure that the Defence Secretary makes an early statement to the House on UK troop deployments in Afghanistan, particularly given that the Dutch Government might not now send 1,200 troops there in the coming months?
	I recognise that the Government never comment on leaked documents, but given that it now appears that the number of so-called rendition flights through the UK may have been greater than was previously reported to the House, will the Leader of the House ensure that the Foreign Secretary makes an early statement to the House to update Members on that matter?
	Last week, the Leader of the House said that the number of NHS trusts with financial difficulties was small. Today, it is reported that no fewer than two thirds of hospitals are having to close wards as a result of financial problems. That is hardly a small number and, apparently, the Prime Minister's response will be to appoint a new Minister to take charge of NHS spin. Yet again, the Government are putting spin doctors ahead of real doctors. Will the Leader of the House make Government time available for a full debate on the state of the NHS? Will he also make time for a debate on education standards, given the concerns about league tables, the number of children being taught in failing schools and the Government's failure to tackle truancy? Will he confirm that the education reform Bill will be published before the House rises for its mid-term recess?
	This month, the largest rise in unemployment for 13 years was recorded. The productivity gap between the UK and the US has been widening since this Government came to power. Will the Government make time for a debate on the state of the economy? In its third report of the 2003–04 Session, the Treasury Committee said:
	"We can only repeat our view that as much notice as possible for the Budget date is desirable, and we urge Government to regard the 2002 practice—of at least 2 months' advance notice—to be at least a working target."
	Will the Leader of the House confirm that the Government will abide by that request, and give us the date of the Budget?
	Finally, when will the Home Secretary make a statement to the House on the Government's final proposals on the reorganisation of police forces?

Geoff Hoon: I congratulate the right hon. Lady on that long list of items, which I suspect will be a new record. I shall endeavour to make my way through each point, but I apologise in advance if I do not give as much detail as usual, as she is clearly challenging my powers of explaining the Government's excellent record on each matter that she raised.
	I am pleased to report that the Merchant Shipping (Pollution) Bill came out of the Lords rather sooner than anticipated. Given that it is available and ready, it seemed sensible to get on with it.
	On Afghanistan, the Government have always kept the House fully informed about the deployment of our forces, and in other theatres. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will take an early opportunity to inform the House about any relevant developments in Afghanistan.
	The right hon. Lady asked about rendition. I am sure that she is not relying on leaked documents for her assertions, but I draw her attention to the fact that the statements by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary were made after the particular document that has been the subject of some rather excitable media speculation this morning. I encourage her to read my right hon. Friend's statements in detail, and she will find the facts contained therein.
	As to NHS funding, the right hon. Lady is relying on a survey that is interesting and important but not especially scientific. It does not set out the full facts, which are clear; as I have told the House on previous occasions, only a small number of NHS bodies are operating in deficit, with some 65 per cent. operating at a surplus.
	I have a question for Opposition Members. Are they seriously saying that the Government should not act to assist those NHS organisations that are operating at a loss, when the great majority operate at a surplus? I should have expected Opposition Members to come to the House and demand that the Government sort the problem out. We are sorting it out by providing help and assistance to ensure that all NHS organisations operate at a surplus, or certainly do not operate at a loss.
	The right hon. Lady asked about the education reform Bill. It has never been Government practice to announce dates, but I assure her and the House that the Bill will brought to the Floor of the House at the earliest possible opportunity.
	It is astonishing for the right hon. Lady to comment about unemployment, given the lamentable performance of the previous Government. In 1992, Norman Lamont—now Lord Lamont—said that unemployment was a price worth paying. I should be interested to know whether that comment was written by the current Leader of the Opposition, who of course was Norman Lamont's special adviser at the time. Many people in the country suspect that that remark is what the Conservatives believe. I would encourage the Conservatives to look carefully at the remarkable record of improvement in employment in this country, which is as good as any of the other G8 countries and out of sight of anything they achieved during their time in office.
	I assure the House that the date of the Budget will be announced in due course, and we have debated police reorganisation already and will continue to debate it.

Nick Brown: Tomorrow, the House will debate the private Member's Bill introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr. Clarke), the International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Bill. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will know that the Bill commands widespread support in the House and he may have seen the letter in The Guardian today from overseas development organisations and others that take an interest in the issue, commending the Bill. Is he in a position to tell the House what attitude the Government will take to the Bill?

Geoff Hoon: The Bill is an excellent initiative that will contribute significantly to the transparency of overseas development initiatives of this and other Governments, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development strongly supports it, as do the Government.

David Heath: Last week, I asked the Leader of the House for a statement by the Home Secretary on the implementation of the Bichard inquiry recommendations. A written statement is being made today, so I thank him for the expedition of this matter and ask him to draw it to the attention of the Prime Minister for his education.
	On 8 December, I raised the issue of extraordinary rendition. Indeed, I have raised it several times. Was the Leader of the House then aware of the memorandum from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to the Prime Minister' Office the previous day, advising that
	"We should try to avoid getting drawn on detail, and to try to move the debate on"?
	Will the Foreign Secretary come to the House to explain that crude attempt to spin the issue away and to announce a full public inquiry into rendition?
	Can the Leader of the House find time for a statement by the Paymaster General on the massive organised fraud in the tax credit system? Some 30,000 cases are being investigated, but that is only the tip of the iceberg, and millions of pounds have been lost to the Exchequer. The Paymaster General was made aware of the issue a year ago, so is it not time that the House had an opportunity to raise questions?
	Finally, can the House now be told what new advice from the intercept commissioner requires the Prime Minister to consider the tapping of the phones of hon. Members? There is real concern on both sides of the House about that issue.

Geoff Hoon: With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I would like to keep the House fully informed about the hon. Gentleman's prospects in the current leadership contest in the Liberal Democratic party. The House has been eager to learn whether he will put his hat into the ring, and the odds are shortening each week as other runners and riders fall by the wayside. We now know, from an e-mail from the chief aide of the former leader of the Liberal Democrats, that the hon. Gentleman does not want to stay neutral and not declare for anyone. We are all delighted to see that Liberal Democrats are breaking the habit of a lifetime and getting off the fence. Time is running out for the hon. Gentleman to announce his candidature and we give him every opportunity today to do so.
	On the issue of extraordinary rendition, I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not listen carefully enough to the answer that I gave earlier. The document to which he refers predates the statements made to the House by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. He set out clearly the relevant facts and those facts have not changed. As a matter of simple timing, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that they can hardly have changed as a result of a document that predated the announcements that have been made.
	I am also interested in the hon. Gentleman's position on organised fraud. If he had looked a little more carefully at the issue, he would have seen that it concerns identity fraud. I am therefore slightly surprised by his party's position on identity cards, as part of the underlying purpose for introducing identity cards is to deal with identity fraud. If the hon. Gentleman were on the Government side of the House, he would have to supply some answers, instead of merely raising questions in the way that he does. I realise that supplying answers is something that the Liberal Democrats are not good at, but practice makes perfect. Perhaps if he would have a go at it, it might help.
	As far as the issue of interception is concerned, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out clearly the Government's position yesterday and I have nothing to add to that.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House will understand that two statements are to follow. I urge Back Benchers to put no more than one supplementary question to the Leader of the House.

Jim Devine: Has my right hon. Friend had time to read early-day motion 1421, which is in my name and has been signed by 65 of my hon. Friends and supported by many more?
	[That this House believes that the Scottish Parliament should follow the lead of the Welsh Assembly and introduce guidelines for all political parties that ensure that candidates for election cannot stand for both the list and the constituency.]
	Will my right hon. Friend find time in this Parliament to resolve the anomalous situation of elections to the Scottish Parliament, whereby candidates can stand in a constituency, lose and then be elected on the list?

Geoff Hoon: I have read that early-day motion, not least because of my hon. Friend's assiduous efforts to draw the issue to the attention of members of the Government, and I congratulate him on his initiative. I am sure that it is something that members of the Scottish National party might consider very carefully.

Andrew MacKay: Although the House will be grateful to the Secretary of State for Defence for the fact that he will come to make a statement if a large number of extra troops are to be deployed in Afghanistan, is it not absolutely essential to hold a full debate, as in the Dutch Parliament, because the situation in Afghanistan is deteriorating, confusing and dangerous? I hope that the Leader of the House, as an ex-Secretary of State for Defence, would agree that such a debate was essential.

Geoff Hoon: I have made it clear already that the Government, as always, attach enormous importance to informing the House about the deployment of British forces. There will be plenty of opportunities in the weeks ahead for the right hon. Gentleman to raise those issues, not least because Defence questions will take place on Monday. I have announced a debate entitled "Defence Procurement", but it has always been the tradition of the House that those debates can allow an extended discussion of all matters that affect defence. Furthermore, I have indicated that, at an early opportunity, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will come to the House to set out the position in relation specifically to Afghanistan. There will be significant opportunities for right hon. and hon. Members to consider those issues.

Brian Iddon: Prostitution is a serious issue that affects many constituencies, so I was disappointed last Tuesday that the Government decided to release their future strategy by written statement, without right hon. and hon. Members being given a chance to question Ministers. What opportunities will there be in future to debate that important subject?

Geoff Hoon: I am sure that this issue will be brought to the Floor of the House by right hon. and hon. Members during questions. Indeed, there will be opportunities on the Adjournment to discuss these issues, and I certainly urge my hon. Friend to consider using Westminster Hall for that important debate.

Philip Hollobone: Will the Leader of the House draw to the Home Secretary's attention the interesting proposal from Brian Moore, deputy chief constable of Surrey police, to place a new specific statutory duty on public authorities to require them to disclose the incidents of violence that come to their attention that are committed by readily identifiable individuals?

Geoff Hoon: I certainly believe that such an initiative would be wholly consistent with the Government's efforts to ensure an emphasis not only on citizens' rights, but on their responsibilities. If we are to tackle not only more serious crimes but the kind of antisocial behaviour that affects far too many of our constituencies throughout the country, it is important that all citizens participate in ensuring that those responsible both for antisocial behaviour and for crime are brought to justice.

Celia Barlow: Will my right hon. Friend consider finding time to debate the carrying of bicycles on trains? My local rail operator—Southern—has just implemented a ban on doing so during peak travel times, which is particularly ironic given that Brighton and Hove has just been awarded £1.5 million of Government money as a Cycling England town.

Geoff Hoon: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is well known for his enthusiasm for bicycles. I will ensure that the important matter is drawn to his attention.

Peter Robinson: Will the Leader of the House set aside time for a statement or debate on paramilitary involvement in criminality in Northern Ireland so that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland can explain the confusion between the position of his security Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Woodward), who says that the IRA is no longer involved in criminality, and the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, who indicates that it is still involved?

Geoff Hoon: I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that there is no confusion between the two positions. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary was referring to the huge and significant change in the position of the IRA as an organisation. Obviously, it is rightly the responsibility of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, which does a superb job on behalf of the community, to ensure that any individuals involved in any kind of criminality are subject to investigation and brought to justice.

Fraser Kemp: Will the Leader of the House consider early-day motion 1418, which was tabled in my name?
	[That this House recognises that carbon monoxide is still a major killer in the United Kingdom, claiming more than 30 lives each year and that more than 50 per cent. of the general public are unaware of this fact; congratulates Hugh and Margaret Brennan, who lost their daughter Anne aged just 19 in 1995 to this silent killer which cut short her life when she was only in the second year of her English degree at Durham University, for their campaigning to end this continuing tragedy; and calls upon the Government further to examine the laws on landlords' responsibility for carbon monoxide poisoning and to renew efforts to warn the general public about such dangers.]
	The early-day motion endorses a call of two of my constituents, Hugh and Margaret Brennan, who tragically lost their daughter Anne to carbon monoxide poisoning 11 years ago. They welcome many improvements that have been made, but call for a wider public awareness campaign to try to stop the needless deaths of 30 people a year in Britain due to carbon monoxide poisoning. Will the Leader of the House join me and them in endorsing the call for people to be made aware of the silent killer that is out there?

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising something that is important because sadly people still lose their lives in such circumstances. He rightly acknowledged that significant improvements to safety measures to prevent such terrible tragedies have been made over the years, but I recognise that more must be done. I assure him that I will draw that to the attention of the Secretary of State.

Mark Pritchard: Will the Leader of the House confirm that following the energy review, a Bill will be brought before Parliament so that all hon. Members can discuss and vote on the conclusions of the review?

Geoff Hoon: The review is important. I am sure that hon. Members will want to discuss it and they will have the opportunity to do so in due course. As I am sure that the hon. Gentleman realises, a review is not the same as a specific proposal for taking immediate action. I am confident that there will be a number of options and that the Government will have to consider the best way forward on several matters. I look forward to his contribution to the debate.

Clive Efford: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to an early-day motion that I am about to put down on the news today that the Department for Work and Pensions is to withdraw a £1 billion contract for the Post Office card account? Many hon. Members raised concerns on the Floor of the House during the reinvention programme for sub-post offices. The change is coming too soon on the back of the previous changes to the sub-post office network. The Department for Work and Pensions says that only one in four people uses the accounts, but I would say that as many as one in four uses them, and the number will be significantly higher in the poorest communities. The issue belongs on the Floor of the House, so I hope that the Leader of the House will take note of my early-day motion when I table it.

Geoff Hoon: As I have indicated to the House before, I am always impressed by my range of responsibilities. I now discover that I am responsible for early-day motions that are still to be tabled. My hon. Friend raised this important issue with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry earlier at Question Time and I shall certainly ensure that it is also drawn to the attention of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.

Bernard Jenkin: May we have a debate on sentencing in child sex abuse cases? Phoenix Survivors, a national support group based in North Essex that has been set up for and by the victims of child sex abuse, has drawn my attention to the sentences handed down in the so-called baby rape case last week of two and a half years and six years, compared with a mandatory life sentence. It is left to the Attorney-General to appeal to the High Court so that more realistic sentences can be applied. I do not blame the judges, but the situation suggests that the law is somehow deficient, so we should discuss the matter.

Geoff Hoon: This issue was quite properly raised last week. As I indicated, the Government have been concerned over many years to ensure that appropriate sentences are passed, not least sentences that reflect the concern of a community when a sentence is perceived to be too lenient. As the hon. Gentleman indicated, we have taken action to provide powers to allow appropriate appeals against sentences that are too lenient and to ensure that appropriate standards are set for the guidance of our judges on the way in which sentences are imposed. The hon. Gentleman was right to draw attention to the issue and I assure him that the Government take these matters very seriously.

Gordon Banks: May I take this opportunity to introduce my right hon. Friend to early-day motion 1417, which has been tabled in my name?
	[That this House acknowledges the role played by the Bevin Boys, who served this nation during the period 1943 to 1948; notes that many paid the ultimate price in their endeavour to rid Europe of Nazi tyrants; and calls upon the Government officially to recognise by the way of an award similar to that available to the military veterans the importance of the Bevin Boys to victory in the Second World War.]
	The Bevin boys were 48,000 conscripted miners who served this country well with their toil, sweat and lives between 1943 and 1948. Will my right hon. Friend use his good offices and speak to relevant members of the Cabinet to investigate the possibility of officially recognising the service that those people provided to this country during the war years and properly and relevantly commending their efforts?

Geoff Hoon: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the matter. My distinguished predecessor, Frank Haynes, was a Bevin boy. He came from London to Ashfield as a miner and served that community extraordinarily well, both in the war years and, of course, as a long-standing Member of the House. The issue is not something that I need reminding about, and I share my hon. Friend's ambition of finding an appropriate way of recognising the Bevin boys' contribution.

Tony Baldry: May we have a debate on early-day motion 1339, which was tabled in my name and has the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House?
	[That this House is concerned that the Home Office has paid £12.5 million in compensation to GSL Ltd because the accommodation centre for asylum seekers at Bicester did not go ahead; is concerned given that GSL was not obliged to purchase land and did nothing whatsoever on the site, that compensation was paid and by the amount of taxpayers' money thrown away on this project, this £12.5 million being in addition to the £18 million the Government has already admitted has been spent on this project; and calls on the National Audit Office to carry out a full investigation.]
	We need a debate on Government procurement and on how the Government actually contract. The Government have wasted £25 million on the accommodation centre in Oxfordshire at a time when the NHS in Oxfordshire has a deficit of £15 million. The Leader of the House will realise that local people, whether taxpayers or users of services, are understandably aggrieved about the situation.

Geoff Hoon: I certainly understand those people's concern because it is vital that Government procurement is efficient and effective. Again, the Government have taken significant steps to ensure not only that the process of procurement in individual Departments is efficient and effective, but that there is a joined-up approach across Government. Different Government Departments often procure identical items, so it certainly makes sense to do that collectively. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the efforts that the Government are making to ensure that health authorities that are suffering deficits are given the right assistance so that they can emulate the example of more successful authorities that are in surplus.

Clive Betts: Will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate on the special steel industry, especially in the light of the decision by Outokumpu, a major firm in my constituency, to declare 800 redundancies and to close the coal division due to competition with China? I would then have the opportunity to seek an assurance that officials from the Department of Trade and Industry and from Yorkshire Forward will work with the remaining parts of the special steel industry to try to get them to work more co-operatively so that they can better resist competition from China and other countries.

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend raises a matter that is important to his constituency and his constituents and has wider implications for special steel production and for the country as a whole. I take note of his observations and am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will take them very seriously indeed.

Angus Robertson: Yesterday saw the publication of a report by a senior aviation expert that lists between 40 and 50 alleged intelligence flights that landed at Scottish airports, including one dubbed the Guantanamo bay express and another that has been the subject of a diplomatic enquiry by Norway and debate in the Canadian Parliament. I know that the Government are keen to avoid getting drawn on detail, but may we have a debate on those details because it will otherwise be hard to conclude that the Government do not have something to hide?

Geoff Hoon: The Government do not have anything to hide. It has been the practice of Governments over time not to comment on such issues, and I am not going to change that practice. It would not be appropriate to comment. If the hon. Gentleman gave half a second's thought to the matter, I am sure he would recognise that it would not be appropriate to have that kind of debate.

Ashok Kumar: Will my right hon. Friend make time available to discuss Britishness and multiculturalism? A great debate is going on outside the House, but we have never discussed the subject on the Floor of the House. It is important and we should debate it, but in all the years that I have been in the House the subject has not been raised here.

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend makes an extremely valuable suggestion. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has set out some interesting and, I think, well received views on how we should more effectively celebrate Britishness. I would want that to include the tremendous contribution made to ethnic diversity in this country by those who have come from, or at least whose antecedents have come from, other countries. That has added to the richness of our nation's heritage.

William McCrea: In March 2005, the Education Minister in Northern Ireland was to announce a school building programme for Northern Ireland, but the election intervened. Since then, no new school building programme has been announced and our schools are crumbling. Can we have time for an urgent debate on a matter of relevance to our children?

Geoff Hoon: The hon. Gentleman may be factually correct about the position as far as schools are concerned, but he will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has announced a significant programme of funding for improvements in the public services in Northern Ireland. I am confident that in due course that will deliver the results that he and members of the Government desire.

Lindsay Hoyle: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that we have a debate on the future of the joint strike fighter and, in particular, the STOVL version of it? If that is not going ahead, it raises not only a question mark over the future of that aircraft, but a bigger question mark over the carriers and the sheer size of them that will be required for other variants that may have to operate.

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Scarcely did Defence questions go by without him raising an aspect of aviation, and he has given me the opportunity to remind myself of those important subjects. As far as the United Kingdom is concerned, it is crucial that the STOVL variant of the joint strike fighter goes ahead. I assure him that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has that at the centre of his attention.

Safeguarding Children

Ruth Kelly: I am grateful for this opportunity to make a further statement on arrangements for vetting those working with children and barring those who are unsuitable. In addition, I am placing in the Library copies of the review of List 99 that I announced last week, which gives further background on this statement. Given the seriousness of the issues, the statement is, as I have discussed with you, Mr. Speaker, longer than usual.
	Nothing matters to parents more than the safety of their children, so I deeply regret the worry and concern that has been caused to parents over the past few days. I am determined to do everything that I can to ease their concerns. This is a complex area. There are no easy answers. Child protection has been a top priority of successive Governments. Ministers in this and previous Administrations have made difficult decisions, particularly in maintaining the safety of children while protecting those working in schools from malicious allegations.
	The operation of the list is set out in legislation going back to 1926, but attitudes have changed significantly in recent decades. That has led to a greater concentration on the terrible effects of child abuse. Consequently, law and practice has been continually tightened. I pay tribute to the Conservative party for paving the way for the sex offenders register and for beginning the process of automatically barring teachers convicted of sex offences.
	This Government have gone further still. From 2000, those included on List 99 on the grounds of unsuitability to work with children have received a full bar. All sex offenders, if deemed unsuitable to work with children, are placed on List 99 and banned from schools indefinitely. In 2003, we passed the most comprehensive overhaul of sex offences legislation since the 1950s. We introduced the Criminal Records Bureau in 2002 to ensure that all schools have full access to the convictions and cautions of the school work force. Sir Michael Bichard's report following the events in Soham made 31 further recommendations, 13 of which are already in place, with the remainder being implemented, but there is more to be done.
	Our vetting and barring system, which is a shared responsibility between Government, local agencies and employers, has developed piecemeal over the past 80 years. In addition—rightly—the public mood on the issues has hardened. It is time, therefore, to overhaul the system. We need a system in which child protection comes first, above all other considerations. It must be a rigorous system, drawing on the best expert advice. There must be absolute clarity about who does what. The system must command public confidence and it must be accountable. It must also be fair to individuals, giving rights of appeal. There must be no witch hunts against hard-working teachers and there must be protection against false or malicious allegations. Today, I am setting out how we will achieve that.
	Public concern has focused on the operation of List 99. I understand that concern, but ensuring that List 99 works properly is only one key part of the current vetting system. The most important check against a school unknowingly employing someone with a sex offence is the check that employers do through the Criminal Records Bureau. Those checks show the full record of potential employees, including convictions and cautions, and whether the applicant is on List 99 or other centrally held databases. Criminal records checks allow schools and others to make informed decisions about whether to appoint. List 99 provides a further check, including in the most serious cases—for someone who is on the list because they are unsuitable to work with children, it is a criminal offence for them even to apply to work in a school.
	List 99 contains 4,045 names. The vast majority are barred indefinitely from working in schools. A much smaller subset—210—are subject to restrictions short of a full ban. List 99 goes wider than just sexual offenders and covers those convicted of crimes, such as deception, as well as those who are unsuitable on health grounds. But because List 99 has only ever automatically covered those individuals who are already working in the education sector when they commit the offence, the Criminal Records Bureau, which covers everyone, is the main safety net.
	For convictions for 40 of the most serious offences, inclusion on the list is automatic. For other cases, the decisions have been at Ministers' discretion, and the vast majority have always been taken by officials on Ministers' behalf. In those cases, advice may be sought from a wide variety of relevant sources before a decision is taken—for example, from the police, experts in sexual offences, forensic psychiatrists and others.
	In 2005, 2,554 cases were referred to the Department, of which 513 resulted in a full bar. In many cases in which an individual is not barred, the evidence considered will have been based on suspicions and allegations rather than firm criminal cautions or convictions, or the individuals referred to the Department will not have previously worked in the education sector.
	A preliminary comparison of these numbers with historic data from 1985 and 1995 suggests that the number of decisions reached each year has increased substantially, yet in all three years both Ministers and officials have made a wide variety of decisions on individuals with convictions or cautions or who are subject to allegations that have been referred for a wide variety of reasons, including sexual offences. As I said, these issues are complex, and always have been. Successive Ministers have been required to make the most difficult decisions.
	Understandably, recent concerns have focused on discretionary decisions by Ministers not to include an individual on List 99, despite that individual being on the sex offenders register. The review that I set in place has identified 10 cases since 1997. In each case, the recommendations after expert evidence were that those individuals posed no threat to children. As a result, those individuals were issued with a grave warning with the requirement for disclosure if they applied for a job in a school. I can, however, tell the House that officials and the police have examined each case. Current inquiries suggest that none of the individuals concerned is working in a school. I have asked police to visit each of those individuals to check whether there is any cause for concern. None is judged by the police to pose a current risk.
	Over the past 10 days, however, I have been determined to go further to provide a more complete analysis. I have asked officials to look at similar decisions made by officials, and decisions by Ministers and officials on cases since 1997 where the relevant offence was committed prior to the introduction of the sex offenders register. That has identified a further 46 cases. As many of those cases deal with very old offences, and are not monitored under sex offender monitoring arrangements, our information on them is much more limited. Officials and, where relevant, the police, have found the following. For 32 of the 46, there is no evidence that the individuals are working with children. In one case, an individual is working in education, but has been assessed by the police as of no cause for concern. In 13 cases, preliminary checks have shown no reason for concern, but our information is as yet not complete. In two of those cases, inconsistent data need to be reconciled. Further action on all 13 cases will be considered in conjunction with the police on a case-by-case basis.
	I am sure that the House will want me to thank the police for their work in following up individuals as part of this exercise. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] In addition, the police have carried out an initial review to see whether there were any further individuals being monitored on the sex offenders register who might be eligible for List 99. Initial investigations suggest that there may be 32 such cases in England and Wales. As a precaution, the police have assessed all those cases. In one case, investigations are continuing. I fully accept that this review of individual cases has identified wider issues about how the vetting system currently operates. Building on Sir Michael Bichard's inquiry, I have identified three key issues that we now need to address including, first, the lack of coherence between List 99 and the other lists held nationally. That is made worse by problems in sharing information and by the fact that, historically, cautions have been treated differently from convictions, despite both being a legal statement of guilt.
	Secondly, there is a lack of clarity about who is responsible for doing what, locally and nationally and, thirdly, we need to address ministerial involvement in decisions. I have concluded that further reform is necessary. Some of it can be done immediately, and some through the primary legislation that we have already planned. Over the past 10 days, I have considered whether it would be possible more closely to align the sex offenders register and List 99. I have decided that we need to go further than that. After extensive consideration, I have decided the most effective approach is to bar from working with children all those who are now convicted or cautioned for any sexual offence against a child, whether the individual is on the sex offenders register or not. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] First, therefore, I will shortly introduce regulations automatically to enter on List 99 anyone who is convicted or cautioned for a sexual offence against a child. I will also automatically bar individuals for a range of other serious sexual offences against adults. By including cautions as well as convictions the anomaly between offenders who are convicted and those who admit their guilt and accept a caution will end. Individuals will have the right to make representations, but they will need to prove that they are not a threat to children before they can work in a school or other educational establishment. I shall consult widely on the detailed implementation of that measure.
	Secondly, I will require mandatory Criminal Records Bureau checks for all newly appointed school employees, thus replacing the current strong guidance. That will also require that teaching agencies ensure that their teachers have a Criminal Record Bureau check. That should ensure that all employers make judgments about appointments in full knowledge of the facts, whether or not a potential employee has previously worked in the education sector. Thirdly, Ofsted will carry out an urgent survey of existing vetting practice in a sample of schools, and it will report to me in the spring. Fourthly, I will write today to all schools, setting out how the checking system will work and informing them of the change to mandatory CRB checks. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will write today to all chief constables, chief probation officers and the Youth Justice Board to restate how the current system works, how it is changing and the priority attached to this area.
	Fifthly, I will ensure that all Department for Education and Skills staff who are part of the vetting process receive appropriate training, support and advice in child protection issues. Finally, in advance of legislating to remove Ministers from the process entirely, I will establish a panel of independent experts chaired by Sir Roger Singleton, the former head of Barnado's, to oversee the whole List 99 process. His role will be to ensure the quality of the process and advise me on any further List 99 cases that need to be decided. The panel will draw on expertise from the police and child protection specialists. While I will not fetter my discretion on individual cases, I cannot at present envisage the circumstances in which I would not follow its expert advice.
	The expert panel will also review cases determined before 1997. It will examine cases that, had the sex offenders register existed, would have resulted in the individual's inclusion on the register, and all cases involving a sexual offence or allegation that resulted in a decision not to include an individual on List 99 or in a restriction or partial bar. The aim of the review will be to establish whether any individual poses a risk of harm to children and if any action should be taken. The permanent secretary at the Department for Education and Skills will ensure that the relevant former Minister is consulted in any such case. Those reforms will make the current List 99 system work better immediately, but the whole Government are determined to replace List 99 entirely with a new, better system as quickly as possible. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said in his statement today, "good progress" is being made in implementing the recommendations of the Bichard inquiry. The necessary legislation that was promised in the Queen's speech will be introduced in February. In particular, that legislation will bring together List 99 and the Protection of Children Act list in a single register of those barred from working with children. I will also use that legislation to make further reforms.
	I will legislate to give independent experts the final decision on who should be barred. This will have the effect of removing from Ministers the responsibility for taking barring decisions. Decision making will be transferred to a statutory body that will be the holder of the new combined register and will take all decisions about who should be barred. Individuals will retain the right of appeal. While I will consult about the exact role of the body, I will ensure that police advice will inform every decision.
	Over the years procedures have been strengthened. It is time, however, to strengthen them further. Nobody who is convicted or cautioned for child sex offences should be allowed to teach in schools. We need an independent panel to take decisions. And we must do all this with proper safeguards to ensure that no teacher, subject to claims or allegations that may be strongly contested, should be unfairly condemned. Our task as a Government, my task as Secretary of State and the task of all of us as legislators is to get this framework right. That is what the reforms that I have announced today will do.

David Willetts: Parents and teachers will be relieved that at last the Secretary of State has made her statement today. After nearly a fortnight in which teachers and parents have become increasingly worried and confused about sex offenders at schools, at last we have some basic information, and we welcome that. We also welcome the right hon. Lady's regret at the uncertainty that we have seen over the past fortnight. We welcome her final statement that no one convicted or cautioned for child sex offences should be allowed to teach in schools. But it is a great pity that even after Soham, even after the Bichard report, it looks as if the Secretary of State and her predecessors were taking decisions that broke that principle. Does she now regret taking decisions that breached the principle that she enunciated today?
	Why has it taken so long to get from the right hon. Lady elementary information about what has been going on in our schools? Ministers were personally deciding whether sex offenders should work in schools. She rightly stressed today the delicacy and the difficulty of those decisions. We understand that, but surely, then, the Department would have been keeping track of the sex offenders that it was releasing into our schools. Instead, for a fortnight the Department has been incapable of answering basic questions about those offenders.
	Even if the Secretary of State did not decide on individual cases, surely it was her responsibility to make sure that they were properly monitored. Instead, parents have been shocked that Ministers have been so ignorant of decisions that they themselves have taken. As parents' concern has mounted, the Secretary of State has remained largely invisible and largely silent. It is this complete absence of reliable information or strong leadership from the Department over the past fortnight that has contributed to the lack of confidence that we see today. Does she accept how much damage the uncertainty and anxiety of the past fortnight has done to the confidence of parents and teachers in the regime that is supposed to maintain the integrity of people in our schools?
	There are other key questions that I put to the Department 10 days ago. Although the Secretary of State has given us much useful information today, she has not answered all the questions. For example, why is it still possible to work in a school without even completing a basic criminal records check? Why did a previous Secretary of State specifically recommend schools to continue recruiting people before those checks had been completed? Were head teachers and governing bodies informed if Ministers did decide that a sex offender should be permitted to work in their school?
	Why did the Secretary of State tell the House last week that offenders were "automatically" put on List 99, which "bars them for life" from teaching, when we now know that that has not been the case? Indeed, in her statement today she said: "From the year 2000 those included on List 99 on the grounds of unsuitability to work with children have received a full bar." How can we reconcile that statement with the apparent evidence that in 2001 a previous Secretary of State did place someone on List 99 without a full bar on their working with children in schools? Did the Secretary of State receive advice last year that the system was not working properly? What steps did she take in the light of that advice?
	The Secretary of State set out a range of proposals today. We welcome the independent review that she announced. We called for precisely such a review last week by an independent person so as once more to restore confidence in the system. The right hon. Lady says that she will finally implement the Bichard report, but may I take her back six years to the Protection of Children Act 1999? The purpose of that Act was to achieve
	"a 'one-stop shop' to compel or allow employers to access a single point for checking the names of people they propose to employ in a post involving the care of children."
	That was the purpose of legislation passed by the House six years ago. We want to know not just why the Secretary of State and her predecessors have failed to implement a proposal in a report 18 months ago, but why they have failed to implement legislation passed by the House six years ago.
	We will, of course, work with the Government and aim to implement constructively the legislation that the Secretary of State proposes—legislation that Ministers described as urgent 18 months ago. Of course we will work with them on that. Our priority will be to restore the confidence of parents and teachers, after a fortnight during which their confidence in the Secretary of State and the system that she administers has ebbed away.I believe that she is an honourable person, but it must be for her and her conscience whether she is capable of regaining the confidence of parents and teachers who have suffered such anxiety, concern and uncertainty over the past 10 days.

Ruth Kelly: I had hoped to welcome the constructive way in which the Opposition had decided to deal with these issues. I of course welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), who speaks for the Opposition on these matters, is prepared to work with us in taking forward the Bichard legislation. I wish he had said that 10 days ago, but at last, having reflected on these issues, he has decided that it is right to take forward the proposals that were set out in the Queen's Speech and which we have decided to bring forward in February.
	I have been at pains to give credit to the Opposition for the work that they did on child protection, including paving the way for the sex offenders register to be introduced in 1997. Not only have I provided the figures which the hon. Gentleman asked for—I have gone further. I have looked not just at the cases determined by Ministers and decisions made not to bar individuals who were on the sex offenders register, but I have also considered decisions made by officials not to bar in respect of people who were on the sex offenders register, and I have gone further than that. I have looked at all the decisions where the cautions and convictions were made before the introduction of the sex offenders register in 1997, and examined all those cases as well, because I think it is important to put the fullest possible information into the public domain, so that we can restore confidence in the system and reassure parents about the robustness of our vetting arrangements.
	Ten days is not a long time in which to carry out such a comprehensive review of thousands of files. Each case has been considered, and each individual has been assessed by the police, with visits to ascertain whether such individuals are currently working with children or pose a risk to children. I have told this House that none of those 10 cases is currently working in a school and that the police have no cause for concern about them in relation to children. The public expect the Secretary of State for Education and Skills to provide public confidence in the system and to conduct the review properly and robustly and in a calm and rational way.
	Over the past 10 days, I have carried out a root and branch review of our child protection processes to make sure that we can make some changes immediately to tighten up the system—for example, introducing an independent panel to review the entire process, to consider all future individual cases and to make recommendations on how to incorporate more fully the advice of the police and the child protection agencies into that process. The panel will also review every single case in which Ministers, who followed the legal framework at the time and who worked under the best expert advice, in this Administration or previous Administrations made decisions to see whether any new information has come to light to warrant revisiting those decisions. Again, I think that the public expect me to do that before reporting to this House.
	I have considered how we can broaden the range of offences that lead to someone being barred from working in schools. I have explained to this House how we will be able to lay regulations to extend the range of offences that will automatically bar an individual from working in a school, subject, of course, to the appeal process.
	To meet the point raised by the hon. Member for Havant about the Criminal Records Bureau, I have explained how we will review our current strong guidance to schools to undertake CRB checks and replace it with a mandatory system, so that all employers who work with children—in particular, the schools work force—will have a responsibility in law to conduct a CRB check, which will reveal not only the cautions and convictions of people who have previously worked in the education sector, but the cautions and convictions of those who have not previously worked in the education sector.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Bichard review and the length of time that it has taken to implement the report. Sir Michael Bichard himself, who thoroughly reviewed the process, said just a few days ago how impressed he is with the Department's work to date in implementing the reforms that he has set out, and we have now committed to a date for their introduction.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to the parliamentary questions and other questions that he tabled in the past 10 days. I intend to answer all those questions today, and I have supplemented my oral statement with a full report and review of List 99, which is available to all hon. Members.
	The hon. Gentleman asked how a decision to make a partial bar could have been made in 2001, but he should examine the legal framework more closely. If a caution or conviction was committed before the introduction of the regulations, it cannot be considered under the new legal framework, but all cautions and convictions considered after that date include the imposition of a full bar. Again, the report attached to my statement covers that issue.
	The hon. Gentleman has called for an independent review. We have conducted a review in the fastest possible time, providing full public confidence to all employers and parents in particular that child protection is our first priority, and I hope that public confidence can now be restored.

Edward Davey: May I thank the Minister for her statement and pay tribute to her work and that of her officials and the police in the past 10 days to conclude this vital review? Despite the comments from some Conservative Members, the Secretary of State has gone a long way today towards ensuring the outcome that everybody wants—the restoration of parents' confidence in the child protection system. However, I hope that she acknowledges that it will take more than one statement to complete that process, and we are prepared to work with her to do just that.
	I particularly welcome the proposal to introduce a single list for people working with children, which will end confusion for employers and the dangers, inconsistencies and loopholes caused by the multitude of lists. I also welcome the removal from Ministers of the responsibility of conducting individual case reviews and the new guidance to schools on appointment procedures and mandatory CRB checks.
	Will the Secretary of State explain why the latest guidance issued by her Department in June last year did not require schools to receive an enhanced CRB disclosure before appointing a teacher, as set out in previous guidance? What can she say to reassure parents and schools that the CRB can perform the increased number of mandatory checks quickly?
	I support the proposal to appoint a panel of experts to review individual cases. Can the Secretary of State confirm that its criteria and guidelines will be published? Can she confirm that her plans will ensure that certain categories of work with children that are currently exempt from CRB checks will now all be covered? Why were child carers minding children over eight years old   ever exempt from CRB checks? Can she confirm that all schools—state schools, independent schools, community schools and city academies—will be subject to the same vetting requirements?
	Will the Secretary of State accept that parts of the package that she has introduced today urgently require more work? Does she share my concern that some agencies supplying staff to schools appear to be particularly poor at checking references and records, and if so, what is she doing about it? When people from overseas apply to teach in our schools, is she convinced that her plans provide for sufficient checks? Will guidance for police on issuing cautions be changed in light of today's announcement?
	Will the Secretary of State reassure the House that in this vital drive to protect children, we will also remember to protect teachers when false allegations are made? Will she ensure that new guidance and training remind schools of the need for safeguards for teachers who may have been wrongly accused? Will she legislate to stop teachers being named before they are charged with offences?
	Will the Secretary of State accept that the situation has arisen largely because of delays in implementing the   recommendations of the Bichard inquiry? How many of the 18 Bichard recommendations that remain unimplemented are her responsibility, and why have they not been implemented? How many of the unimplemented Bichard recommendations are the responsibility of the Home Office? Given the Home Office delays with computer projects for Bichard, will she reassure the House on the time scale for the IT projects that lie behind today's proposal? When will those IT projects be implemented and what safeguards exist for the interim?
	It is in the interests of children, teachers, schools and the wider public that confidence is restored rapidly and the hysteria is ended. The Secretary of State has made a real start today—if she delivers on her promises and answers our reasonable questions, Liberal Democrats will work with her to complete the task.

Ruth Kelly: I welcome the way in which the hon. Gentleman has treated these serious issues. It is important that we restore confidence in the system and take sensible, immediate, practical action to make it more robust. We will tighten up our vetting procedures through legislation and introduce a positive vetting procedure, which will reassure parents and employers, too. He has welcomed a number of our measures, and I thank him for his support.
	The hon. Gentleman specifically mentioned the categories covered by the new mandatory CRB checks. We are in the process of reviewing that, and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Children and Families will have more to say shortly.
	The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that we need to tackle the issue of supply agencies, which I mentioned in my statement. CRB checks will be made mandatory for supply agencies.
	The hon. Gentleman is right to mention overseas teachers and workers in schools; we will review the process for vetting them.
	The hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that cautions and convictions are currently treated in different ways. We will in future bring those together for certain specified offences against children. The police may need to rethink how cautions are issued in light of that, although the most important point is that there is a quick appeals system with a right of representation for the individual.
	The hon. Gentleman is wrong to suggest, however, that there has been a delay in implementing Sir Michael Bichard's report. The Department has been working on this with considerable vigour and urgency over the past 18 months. Sir Michael Bichard himself reviewed the implementation timetable and endorsed it. Moreover, he recently said that he was "very impressed" with the work undertaken by officials. Nobody in the wider public who realises that four different computer systems need to be replaced with one computer system that continually updates records will think that 18 months is an excessive length of time to pave the way for that legislation. It is of course important that we keep child protection right at the top of our list of priorities, and that is my commitment to the House.

Barry Sheerman: May I criticise my right hon. Friend in one respect? Some of us with a bit of interest in history will be quite sad to see a piece of legislation that has lasted 79 years at last being dragged out of the cupboard, shaken up and renewed, although only a slight amount of nostalgia is involved. No other Government have done that.
	I congratulate my right hon. Friend, who, in all the frenzy over the past two weeks, has kept a clear, cool head, has not listened to the trumped-up charges from the Opposition, and has come through, after hard work, with proposals that have taken the game away from them. Does she agree that one educational lesson to come out of the past 10 days is: "You might have two enormous brains but you do not have much common sense"?

Ruth Kelly: I thank my hon. Friend for his support. I can assure him that I take my responsibility as Secretary of State very seriously indeed. The Education Secretary is responsible for ensuring that the systems and processes that employers use to check the suitability of a candidate for working with children are as robust as possible. I have explained how we intend to tighten the system further, while accepting that it has been tightened progressively over decades, particularly in the past eight years or so. The legislation that we are implementing to introduce the Bichard proposals will bring in a completely new vetting and barring system and give the public yet another tool to assess the suitability of those applying to work with children.

Michael Fallon: Is the Secretary of State aware that although anybody who has worked with List 99 will welcome improvements to it, she will not regain parents' confidence until she can explain the delay more fully? What part of her proposals or her review could not have been announced immediately after the Bichard report 18 months ago?

Ruth Kelly: Clearly, I had a responsibility as Secretary of State to carry out the review thoroughly. That meant that I had to be precise about the numbers that I presented to the House. I had to put them into context and make sure that I was not inadvertently misleading the House by not looking at similar cases where there may be cause for concern. In addition, I have asked the police to review each case individually and to visit the people involved. I do not think that 10 days is such a long time to go through that process.

George Howarth: I thank my right hon. Friend for the clarity and completeness of the review that she has carried out, which was reflected in her statement. Does she accept that most fair-minded people will be reassured that she now has a clear grasp of the scope of the problem and a clear strategy for dealing with it?

Ruth Kelly: I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. He always approaches these issues in the most sensible way. The key issue is that we have a robust system for child protection in which parents can have confidence. I have set out the steps that we need to take in the short term and the medium term to ensure that that is the case.

Keith Simpson: Sadly, we would not be here to listen to the Secretary of State's welcome statement had there not been the press coverage relating to my constituent, Mr. Paul Reeve. Can she explain to me and my constituents why a letter from the Norfolk constabulary dated 15 December, explaining their concern, never got a proper reply; why there was no proper reply to an email from Norfolk county council on 21 December; and why it was only when that case hit the press that we got any action?

Ruth Kelly: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that correspondence was taken very seriously. I had asked for advice on the issue and advice was being prepared for a decision when the story broke. In each and every case that emerges, issues are raised about how the system operates. In future, cases such as the one that emerged would automatically be placed on List 99.

Judy Mallaber: I very much welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and the thoroughness of the review. I also welcome the huge amount of work that the Government have already done on these issues, including keeping up with the ever-changing technology to do with the exchange of child pornographic images, each of which represents abuse of a child for profit in front of a camera. Can she again confirm that in future those cautioned for, or convicted of, downloading pornographic images will be automatically barred?
	On appeals, will my right hon. Friend reassure the House that they will be dealt with by people who are expert in offences of this nature? Can she confirm that there will be no suggestion of relying on testimonials from colleagues and other parents? As I know from the case of a GP in a surgery in my constituency, it is all too easy for the devious people involved in these offences to go into denial and convince their colleagues. Can my right hon. Friend assure us that testimonials will not be used—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is far too long.

Ruth Kelly: I can give my hon. Friend those assurances. In future, offences committed under schedule 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 will receive a full bar, subject to the right of representation. Cautions and convictions will be brought into line, and appeals will be based on the best possible evidence.

Tobias Ellwood: Can the Secretary of State clarify the situation regarding William Gibson and explain how he could be thrown out of three schools in the north of England only to end up in Portchester school in my constituency? This man has spent time in jail, has committed forgery, fraud, deception and indecent assault, and is not the suitable role model that we expect to find in our schools. As a married man in his 30s with two children, he pursued a relationship with a 15-year-old girl while teaching at that school. For the sake of parents and pupils and for the sake of restoring faith in our system, it would be a disgrace if this man were ever to teach again.

Ruth Kelly: Were that caution or conviction to be obtained under the proposals that I have set out today and dealt with under the new regulations that I propose to introduce, that individual would be barred for life from working with children, subject to the right of representation. In any particular case, however, it is for the employer to check with the Criminal Records Bureau and ensure that they have the fullest possible knowledge of all previous cautions and convictions, including whether a person is on List 99, or indeed on other lists, and to make an informed decision on that basis.

Andrew Miller: Has my right hon. Friend considered the additional pressure that the measures will put on the CRB? Has she received an assurance from the CRB that it has adequate resources? If it does not, will she ensure that they are put in place? A great deal of concern will remain until her measures are firmly in place.

Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Both the CRB and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary have considered the matter and given me the full assurance that the CRB has the capacity to deal with the measures.

Nadine Dorries: I thank the Secretary of State for a master-class in bolting the stable door. As a mother, I am angry to find that, since 1997, my three children have been at risk—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the hon. Lady be heard.

Nadine Dorries: What assurances can the Secretary of State give me that my children are safe in school today?

Ruth Kelly: No Education Secretary in this Government or any previous Administration could ever give an absolute guarantee that no one who poses a risk to children could work with children. However, we can give the public an absolute assurance that the process is as robust as possible to ensure that the risk to children is minimised.
	The hon. Lady suggests that there was a key moment in 1997. There was: we introduced the sex offenders register, which provided another safeguard for individuals and employers. Further to that, we introduced the CRB, which means that all employers have access to all relevant cautions and convictions. The process has therefore been tightened considerably in the past eight years.

Lynda Waltho: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, especially her comment that there should be no witch hunt. As a former teacher, I have had colleagues whose careers, reputations and family life were damaged. Is it not the case that we need a balance between protection for children and confidence for our teachers?

Ruth Kelly: We do, and my hon. Friend makes the important point that we must have a fair as well as robust system. Today, I have set out the way in which I intend to rebalance the system so that the protection of children is always our first priority.

Peter Robinson: I welcome the steps that the Secretary of State has announced. Will she confirm that the reforms will be implemented throughout the United Kingdom—in Northern Ireland at the same time as the rest of the UK? Will she also confirm that, when primary legislation is necessary, Northern Ireland will be plugged into it rather than having to rely on separate legislation thus dragging months, if not years, behind?

Ruth Kelly: List 99 currently covers England and Wales although, of course, we are in contact with the devolved Administrations when appropriate about how to take forward the reforms.

Joan Walley: I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement of proposals for further action. However, it is possible that loopholes exist whereby people who are elected as councillors could be on the sex offenders register and could not be barred from access to schools. Will she hold talks with the Standards Board for England, the Home Office and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to ascertain how we ensure that her further action can provide the safeguards that people seek?

Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend makes a serious and well considered point. I will investigate that issue.

Andrew MacKay: Earlier, the Secretary of State admitted that she had not answered all the written questions that my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) tabled 10 days ago and went on to say that she would do so later today. Does she not realise that many parents and teachers outside the House will wonder why she did not do that in the statement and will fear the worst? May I give her the opportunity to set the record straight and answer those questions now on the Floor of the House?

Ruth Kelly: I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman that I have placed a full report in the Library. It answers practically all the questions that the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) put to me as Secretary of State. Any further answers that need to be given will be tabled during the course of the day.

Liz Blackman: Child protection always has, is and always will be work in progress because of its complexity and difficulty. I welcome the extent of the measures that my right hon. Friend announced. Will she undertake to make regular statements to the House, not only because hon. Members will appreciate the progress that will be made but because that will add to the wider public's confidence?

Ruth Kelly: I certainly will. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary makes regular written statements on the implementation of the Bichard report and has issued a further such statement today. It is a good example, which I intend to follow.

Peter Bottomley: Would the Secretary of State think it appropriate to ask directors of education authorities, including West Sussex, where we have a case that I will not mention in detail, and chief constables to communicate to the Department any helpful suggestions, and reactions to her statement and the current position?
	Will she check with the CRB about delays in processing requests for information, given that one of her colleagues in the Department of Health said that they did not know how long it takes to clear doctors, and it would be useful to ensure that teachers' applications are cleared fairly fast? Will she ensure that teacher supply agencies are not left out of the loop because they often find themselves unable to provide necessary information?
	As a final, brief point, will she try to ensure that relevant information is available to children who experience inappropriate or criminal behaviour by an adult—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We are looking for only one supplementary from hon. Members.

Ruth Kelly: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I assure hon. Members that I have written to all local education authorities and that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has written to all chief constables as well as several other relevant organisations. We shall consult on the detailed implementation of the proposals. The CRB has given assurances about its capacity to deal with the issues, and I covered in my statement and in questions our consideration of supply agencies.

Jeff Ennis: Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the key issues is communication? How will today's statement affect current communication between the police, head teachers and social workers? How will the Government's "Every Child Matters" agenda impact on the issue?

Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to good communication and to a genuine understanding of the different responsibilities of central Government and local government and individual employers. I have therefore written today to all head teachers, local education authorities and further education colleges to set out their responsibilities. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has used a similar approach to the police.

Paul Burstow: Can the Secretary of State confirm the date on which the mandatory CRB checks will begin? Can she confirm that they will be enhanced checks? Why has she announced only now that training is necessary for those who make the vetting decisions? Surely training should have been in place for a long time.

Ruth Kelly: Training was a recommendation in the Bichard review. We have already made proposals on it—if the hon. Gentleman looks at the Department's website, he will see that they are set out in some detail. Sir Michael Bichard was impressed by our approach to that. We will table regulations to make the CRB process mandatory and introduce it as soon as that is reasonably practicable for head teachers.

David Chaytor: My right hon. Friend has given an outstandingly informative statement. Because information is so important to the reassurance of parents, would she consider disclosing a little more? She said earlier that, of the 4,045 individuals on List 99, a subset of 210 were subject not to a full ban but to certain restrictions. Without going into the details of individual cases, would it be useful and helpful if she could say, now or in the near future, exactly which offences would justify certain restrictions and what those restrictions would be?

Ruth Kelly: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. He is absolutely right to draw attention to the 210 cases that received a partial bar. Many of those will not have involved a sexual offence at all. If, for example, a teacher commits fraud, it may be considered that that person should not work in a capacity in which they had financial dealings in relation to a school or other educational institution. In such cases, it is perfectly reasonable to impose a partial ban.
	However, in 2000, we introduced the concept of "unsuitable to work with children". Historic cases were considered on a piecemeal basis. For example, if an offence had been committed against a young boy, the offender could have been given a partial bar against working in boys' or mixed schools. Today, that would not be considered an appropriate response. That is why I have asked the independent panel of experts to review all past cases involving partial bars, to see whether new evidence has emerged about those individuals who had a partial bar based on a sexual offence, and to see whether we need to reconsider those cases.

Hywel Williams: How will the independent panel that the Secretary of State is setting up be accountable to the House?

Ruth Kelly: It will be accountable via the Secretary of State for Education and Skills in the first instance, and after legislation has been put through the House, it will be incorporated into a statutory body that will be accountable through Ministers to the House.

Regulation of Cannabis

Charles Clarke: With permission, I would like to make a statement on the regulation of cannabis. The House will know that last March I asked the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to examine new evidence on the harmfulness of cannabis and to evaluate whether it altered their assessment of the drug's classification. In so doing, I was particularly concerned by studies, published since the council's 2002 report, which seemed to indicate strong links between cannabis and serious mental illness. I am very grateful to the council for the work that it has done in responding to my request and I am today placing a copy of its report and conclusions in the Library of the House.
	I shall highlight two conclusions from the council's report. The first is that cannabis is harmful and its use can lead to a wide range of physical and psychological harms and hazards; that the mental health effects of cannabis are real and significant; that cannabis is potentially harmful, with short-term risks to physical health; that a substantial research programme into the relationship between cannabis and mental health should be instituted; that the Government ought to seek to reduce the use of cannabis; and that the cultivation, supply and possession of cannabis should remain illegal.
	The second conclusion is that the level of classification is only one among the issues to be addressed and that, in the council's view, priority needs to be given to proper enforcement of the law, to education and to campaigning against the use of cannabis. The council recommends a substantial Government education campaign, strengthened medical services for those dependent on cannabis and greater protection for those with pre-existing mental conditions that place them at particular risk from cannabis use. The council also proposes further research to improve our understanding of the mental health implications of cannabis use.
	I have discussed those recommendations with my colleagues, the Secretaries of State for Education and Skills and for Health, and we have agreed to accept and implement them energetically. In so doing, we accept that the use of cannabis significantly increases the chances of developing chronic bronchitis and poses a potential lung cancer risk. We accept the growing body of research that suggests that cannabis may exacerbate or even trigger a range of serious mental health problems, including schizophrenia. In the words of the ACMD report,
	"the mental health effects of cannabis are real and significant".
	In summary, cannabis is anything but harmless. That is why possession of cannabis remains punishable by up to two years in prison. It is why the Government strongly oppose proposals to legalise the drug, and will continue to do so. This month, we have introduced new powers under the Drugs Act 2005 to strengthen the hand of the police in dealing with those caught supplying the drug.
	However, as the advisory council's report indicates, the illegal status of the drug is not enough. We need a massive programme of public education to convey the danger of cannabis use. Our aim is to provide effective education in schools about the risks posed by cannabis, to send the right messages about the harms the drug does and, very importantly, to equip young people with the knowledge and courage to make the right decisions. We will use the "Frank" media campaign and other channels to raise understanding about the dangerous and illegal impact of cannabis consumption. The campaign, delivered in partnership with the police, will publicise the penalties for cannabis dealing, production and use.
	Growing and selling cannabis is neither harmless nor, as some argue, idealistic. It is a multi-million pound business, often organised by sophisticated and violent criminals. I remind the House that those who deal in large quantities of cannabis face maximum penalties of up to 14 years for this offence. That is why I have discussed with the Association of Chief Police Officers the need to focus police effort and to take strong action to reduce the supply of cannabis. The police and I agree that, in recent years, the production and dealing of cannabis have not always been targeted sufficiently vigorously, and we have agreed that this needs to change. ACPO will now draw up a consolidated campaign of action to attack the production and trafficking of cannabis, which provide obscene profits out of the misery of users. ACPO will aim to put cannabis farms out of business and dealers behind bars. At the same time, it will revise and strengthen its guidelines for dealing with cannabis-related crime.
	As hon. Members will be aware, the Home Office recently published a consultation exercise to look at the threshold levels of cannabis in a person's possession at which that person would be deemed to be a supplier. I would like to inform the House that my final decision will involve a considerably lower level than the 500g suggested in the current consultation.
	I believe that those education, health and police measures give clear and comprehensive messages about the dangers of cannabis and a warning that those who produce or are dealers in cannabis will be brought to justice. They are focused on reducing the use of cannabis, and I believe that reduction of use should be the goal of all our drugs policies, whether the drug is legal or illegal. Also, it is the case that clarity is the best weapon we have in the fight to reduce the use of cannabis. That is the basis on which I approach the issue of classification.
	The more that I have considered these matters, the more concerned I have become about the limitations of our current system. Decisions on classification often address different or conflicting purposes, and too often send strong but confusing signals to users and others about the harms and consequences of using a particular drug. Furthermore, there is often disagreement over the meaning of different classifications. For example, many people wrongly interpreted the reclassification of cannabis to mean that cannabis was not harmful and that its use was acceptable and even legal. For these reasons, I will in the next few weeks publish a consultation paper with suggestions for a review of the drug classification system, on the basis of which I will make proposals in due course.
	In regard to the particular issues in front of us now, as previously announced I have accepted the advice to keep methyl amphetamine as a class B drug, although this is subject to a review reporting later this year. Similarly, I have accepted the council's advice not to classify khat as a controlled drug. I can today announce that I have also asked the advisory council to report on the classification of so called date rape drugs, including GHB and Rohypnol.
	On cannabis, I have considered very carefully the advice that I have received from many sources. I am influenced by data on levels of use of the drug and evidence that cannabis use had fallen among 16 to 24-year-olds from 28 per cent. in 1998 to 24 per cent. last year. The preliminary assessment is that, contrary to my personal expectation, reclassification has not led to an increase in use. Moreover, I accept the view of the advisory council that further research on the mental health implications is needed before any decision to reclassify is made.
	While I shall keep this matter under close review in the light of the factors that I have mentioned, I have decided to accept the advisory council's recommendation, which is supported by the police and by most drug and mental health charities, to keep the current classification of cannabis. Everyone needs to understand that cannabis is harmful and illegal. Our education and health campaigns will clearly transmit that message. Police operations will target the producers and dealers so that the consumption of cannabis will be significantly reduced. I hope that the Government will have the support of the whole House in seeking that outcome.

David Davis: I thank the Home Secretary for the courtesy of allowing me advance notice of his statement. It would have been helpful, however, if he had given the House some hours to read the report before this brief discussion. Despite that, in the past year or so there have been plenty of authoritative judgments and many new facts on which to base our judgment today.
	Before I deal with the substantive case, may I welcome the Home Secretary's proposed education and other campaigns designed to cut down the consumption of cannabis? I would be interested in talking to him at some length about his proposals for the new classification scheme, which is extremely important, as will become apparent later.
	The action that the Home Secretary has taken today, or talked about taking, will not by itself be enough. I am disappointed that, in the light of all the new evidence available, he has not decided to grasp the nettle and reclassify cannabis back to class B. The ongoing confused message will lead some, as it has done already, to continue thinking that cannabis is a soft, safe drug and that it is legal. It will mean that many more young lives will be damaged by the pernicious trade, as he described it, in this dangerous drug.
	It was a brave decision by the Home Secretary to initiate a review of this policy. It is always tough to admit that a mistake might have been made. In the past, his views on the matter have been clear. He said that the relaxation of the laws on cannabis—I think that he alluded to this in his statement—would be
	"bad for the people concerned and bad for society".
	He is correct. In March 2000, he said that
	"the most likely impact of a relaxation in the law in any of these areas would be to increase consumption of those drugs".
	He denies that today, but I think that he was right first time round. I will explain why shortly. He also said:
	"If we send any signal whatsoever which suggests that taking drugs is an acceptable way of proceeding I think we'll see consumption go up"—[Interruption.]
	We will return to that matter. He also said that weakening controls on cannabis would send a signal that taking drugs is okay.
	The Home Secretary might say, "So what? If the evidence changes, you change your mind", and I agree with that principle in general. The thrust of the evidence and leading opinion, however, is in the other direction. It shows that reclassification to class C was a mistake. From the Royal College of Psychiatrists, to the BritishMedical Association, to specialists in drug rehabilitation, to working police officers, we hear that the policy was a failure.
	The British Medical Association has said that reclassification sent out "all the wrong messages" to people thinking of experimenting with cannabis, and that reclassification would lead people to believe that it was "safe". Keith Hellawell, the Government's ex-drugs tsar, said that reclassification led to "euphoria amongst drug dealers". That is because
	"the perception now . . . is that the Government doesn't care about personal possession of cannabis".
	The Police Federation chairman, Jan Berry, said:
	"Many users who progress to hard drugs admit they started on cannabis. I am deeply worried that many people will see the reclassification of cannabis"—
	downwards—
	"as decriminalisation and we will see a rise in the number of users finding themselves drawn into a life of drugs and crime".
	We know that the use of cannabis is a gateway to hard drugs. Research shows that regular cannabis users have a 59 per cent. higher chance of using other illegal drugs Most tellingly, new medical evidence has shown the serious harm that cannabis can do. To be fair to the Home Secretary, he referred to that. The Royal College of Psychiatrists says that there is now a "wealth of research evidence" linking cannabis to long-term mental disorders and violence. Professor Hamid Ghodse, a director of the college, said that as a result of the new evidence:
	"Some countries with a more liberal policy towards cannabis, such as Holland, are reviewing their position. Governments need to take a strong stance towards cannabis abuse."
	We now know that cannabis can cause psychosis. Professor Murray at King's college hospital in London has said that smoking cannabis raises the risk of psychosis by two to four times. People who used cannabis in their teens were up to seven times more likely to develop psychosis, delusional episodes or manic depression. The incidence of schizophrenia in that doctor's area of London has doubled, which means 50,000 people developing schizophrenia who would not otherwise have done so.
	That new evidence demonstrates all too clearly the huge psychiatric damage, let alone the other physical damage, that cannabis does. That can only be expected to get worse, as modern cannabis varieties contain many times more psychoactive ingredients than cannabis of 10 or 20 years ago. As a result, modern cannabis does more harm than the older varieties. Professor Peter Jones of Cambridge university has said that first-contact schizophrenic services in the NHS were becoming cannabis dependency services.It is therefore clear that on the ground of medical risk alone, reclassification to B is justified.
	That leaves us—the Home Secretary has a fair point—with a practical judgment as to what classification will do most to cut consumption of cannabis. That is undoubtedly hard to assess, but the best measure is perhaps the "Lambeth experiment" in cannabis liberalisation. The Prime Minister described that as,
	"undoubtedly, in statistical terms, a success."
	Let us consider the statistics. Incidents of drug trafficking rose by 100 per cent. and total drugs offences rose by nearly 200 per cent. It did save the time of two full-time police officers, but Metropolitan Police Deputy Assistant Commissioner Michael Fuller said that the increase in hard drug offences
	"would negate any time saved through reclassification of cannabis, as the service would have to devote significant resources to enforce the law."
	He said that his school officers reported that
	"the police are sending mixed messages to young people, by on the one hand trying to deter young people from abusing and experimenting with drugs and yet appearing hypocritical by not strictly enforcing the drug laws".
	Chief Superintendent Simon Humphreys of the Met said:
	"There is a feeling that it contributed to confusion and cannabis is being used more."
	That assessment was supported by a Police Federation official who said that the
	"number of drug users within the area since the start of the initiative has increased dramatically and the real beneficiaries are the influx of drug dealers to the area."
	The Home Secretary has said that
	"people do not understand the impact of the consumption of cannabis well enough and what the legal consequences of consuming cannabis are."
	He was making a virtue of the fact that 24 per cent. of 16 to 24-year-olds took cannabis last year—those are the ones that we know about. That makes us the cannabis capital of Europe. In recent weeks, he has said:
	"the precautionary principle is an appropriate one."
	He told The Times that he was
	"very struck by the advocacy of a number of people who have been proposers of the reclassification of cannabis that they were wrong."
	There are good reasons for that—good medical reasons, good public health reasons and good public order reasons.
	The Home Secretary took a brave decision when he initiated the policy review. I admit that. He created an opportunity to protect or rescue thousands of young lives from harm by reclassifying cannabis as the very harmful and dangerous drug that it is. The fact that he has not followed through and taken the new evidence into account is a missed opportunity for him but, more importantly, a tragedy for many thousands of lives.

Charles Clarke: There are four matters to which I need to respond. First, I hope that the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) will continue to make it clear in every public statement that he makes that the consumption of cannabis is illegal—not a soft, easy option or whatever. I agree with him that there are confusions and I have tried to set out a process to deal with those. It is therefore important that public leaders, such as me and him, work together constantly to convey the message that cannabis consumption is illegal, with a potential two-year sentence in all respects. I am sure that he will do that—indeed, I am delighted that he will do so. I welcome his welcome of the review of the classification system and I will talk to him about it as he requested.
	Secondly, evidence must be the core of what we do in this area—evidence of consumption and evidence of mental health and other health implications, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. That is why I said in my statement that we will continue to review the matter on the basis of evidence as it evolves over time. I am certain that that is the right course to follow. Thirdly, the right hon. Gentleman made a large number of statements, with which I agreed entirely, about the dangers of the use of cannabis. I think that he was signing up to the proposition that the central aim of our policy ought to be to reduce the use of cannabis by whatever means, with which I agree 100 per cent.Finally, the right hon. Gentleman referred to the wide range of opinion that exists in the advisory council, among police and among drug and health charities. We must, however, make a balanced judgment.
	As the right hon. Gentleman well knows, there is also a wide range of opinion in his party. As is shown in the Home Affairs Committee's report of 2001–02, the Leader of the Opposition—the current Leader of the Opposition, unfortunately; I wish that it had been the right hon. Gentleman—voted in favour of the then Home Secretary's proposal to reclassify cannabis as a class C drug. He has said that that was the case. Nine Members voted in the Division, and the Leader of the Opposition voted as he did. Extraordinarily, there was then a Division in Committee on an amendment containing the words
	"we wish to go further, and recommend it should be legalised."

David Winnick: That was my amendment.

Charles Clarke: Indeed, my hon. Friend features on the Division list, having voted as he did. Strangely, the nine Members became eight at that stage. My hon. Friend and another colleague voted for legalisation; everyone else voted against it. However, the Leader of the Opposition was absent for the vote on legalisation— [Interruption.] I am illustrating the wide range of opinion that exists. I hope that we can all agree that reduction in cannabis use is the key element that must be tackled.

John Denham: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, and in particular his review of the classification system. Although the advisory committee has a broad membership, it seems to be more reliable when it comes to the clinical impact of drugs. Classification must take into account much wider questions of how particular drugs are used, links—or otherwise—with crime, whether there are ways in which young people are especially vulnerable, and so on. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to produce a system that will ensure that Ministers are advised not just on the clinical issues, but on all the broader factors that my right hon. Friend, like his predecessors and successors, must take into account.

Charles Clarke: My right hon. Friend is entirely right. That is why I made my decision. Clinical, medical harm is the advisory council's predominant consideration, contrary to what was said by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), but there are also harmful implications for society more widely in the case of particular drugs, whether they relate—as my right hon. Friend suggests—to organised crime or to general social factors. The signals that emerge from the classifications A, B and C can be very confused, so it is important to re-examine the position. I do not think that I am betraying a confidence in saying that Sir Michael Rawlings, chair of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, has welcomed my decision. I believe that that is because the council's members know that getting the classification system right is key to reducing the use of dangerous drugs, which I am determined to do.

Mark Oaten: I thank the Home Secretary for giving notice of his statement. The Liberal Democrats strongly welcome his decision not to reclassify cannabis. It was a difficult decision, and I know that the Home Secretary did not take it lightly. I am encouraged by the fact that it was taken on the basis of evidence rather than political pressure. The Home Secretary is also right to point out that the drug remains harmful, and the Liberal Democrats will strongly support a new education campaign to make that clear. Does the Home Secretary agree that that campaign must emphasise not just the mental damage but the physical damage involved in the taking of cannabis? Does he also agree, however, that it must not fuel hysteria over issues related to cannabis? That would do little to instil trust in people who are receiving information from the Government on critical issues to do with drugs.
	May I warn the Home Secretary against allowing police resources to be spent too heavily on cannabis that is grown for personal use? Will he ensure that they are directed more against organised criminals who are involved in drug dealing? In particular, he must now deliver on his promise to refocus police resources more on class A drugs. That, surely, is where the priority must lie.

Charles Clarke: I welcome elements of what the hon. Gentleman said. He is right to say that the education campaign—I welcome his support for it—must be founded on a hard-hearted and evidential approach based on, for example, the mental health implications, rather than an hysterical approach. [Interruption.] I accept the correction: I should have said "hard-headed" rather than "hard-hearted".
	I do not accept, however, that police resources should not be focused on this area, although the hon. Gentleman is right to point out the dangers of class A drugs. As I said in my statement, I think that the police would accept that what has happened in the past can be interpreted as suggesting that they should not give priority to dealing with cannabis, but I do not accept that, and neither does ACPO. That is why we have an ACPO campaign aimed at the dealing, growing and production of cannabis. I think it very important for that campaign to proceed alongside the education campaign.
	Let me finally say something with all directness to the Liberal Democrats who, I am sad to learn, will not now be led by the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten). They have a confused position on drugs, which was exposed in a variety of ways during the election campaign. I honestly and sincerely ask the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to come out and say clearly that consumption of cannabis is wrong and that we must drive it down by all possible means. They must not equivocate on policies surrounding that; they must get up front and campaign with all the rest of us to reduce cannabis use.

David Winnick: May I point out that the only Conservative member of the Home Affairs Committee who voted against the reclassification when we met on9 May 2002 to decide on our report and recommendations was the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson), who took a consistent line? As my right hon. Friend said earlier, the present Leader of the Opposition supported the reclassification and abstained on the question of whether cannabis should be legalised.
	Our report stated that some 44 per cent. of people had taken the drug at some point in their lives. I deplore that. I wish that people would not start taking drugs of any kind. We do not want our children to do so, and I hope that we can send a message throughout the country about how dangerous it is to start taking drugs. However, our report also pointed out that 120,000 deaths had been caused in one year alone by smoking, and that thousands of avoidable deaths were caused each year by alcohol abuse. Those drugs are all of a kind. We should deplore excessive use of alcohol and excessive smoking, as well as use of the ordinary drugs to which my right hon. Friend has referred.

Charles Clarke: I thank my hon. Friend for what he has said, but I hope he agrees that, as I said in my statement, the goal of Government policy should be to reduce consumption of all drugs, legal or illegal. That should be the test. Our measures on smoking in public places, on taxation of alcohol consumption and on advertising the effects of consumption are right and in accordance with that. Our criteria must be based on how we drive down consumption of cannabis in the same context. I believe that my statement set out, in a direct and effective fashion, ways of accelerating the reduction of cannabis consumption. We need to do the same in respect of other drugs.

Iain Duncan Smith: I must say that I was disappointed by the statement, although I welcomed much of it. It is, of course, appalling that the use of cannabis continues. The figures that the Home Secretary gave in relation to use were very flawed, however. If he talks to those on the ground who are taking children off drugs, as we do in the Centre for Social Justice, they will tell him that the police no longer stop people who are using cannabis. They have lost all track of how many people actually use it on the ground. In their view, cannabis use has become worse on the ground and is now more dangerous. It is a question not just of psychosis and mental illness, but of massive behavioural problems, more bullying in schools, the theft of telephones and the beating up of children after they leave school. All that has increased.
	May I urge the Home Secretary to rethink and to reclassify? If he is now to examine the classification process, may I urge him to look at Sweden, which has dispensed with different classifications? It applies a single classification, which means that all drugs are bad and that people are in trouble if they use them.

Charles Clarke: That was a helpful question. Yes, I will look at Sweden, which is always a model for social democrats.
	The right hon. Gentleman made an important point when he mentioned bullying. He was right to say that bullying, in and outside school, drives many people into consumption of the drug. That is why, in my statement, I spoke of the need to urge young people to have the courage to stand up for themselves in such circumstances.
	I will, of course, look at the research that the Centre for Social Justice has carried out on consumption and various other issues, but when the right hon. Gentleman referred to police strategies he put his finger on an important point that is not always understood in these discussions. He is right to say that there has to be a question mark over police strategies in terms of focusing on this area, and the reclassification decision some years ago did not help that process. That is why, as I said in my statement, I have discussed precisely that question with ACPO. We must have a police strategy that says that we will pursue those who consume illegal drugs, and that means cannabis. That is why I did not agree with the point made by the Liberal Democrat spokesman a moment ago. I think we all agree that the key issue to target, other than education, is ensuring that an effective police strategy is in place, so that the police address the issue in communities throughout the country.

Natascha Engel: As my right hon. Friend is aware, it is the police work on the ground that is key to combating drug-related crime. So will he join me in welcoming Inspector Trevor Durham and his team from Clay Cross, who are visiting Brixton police colleagues today to hear about the no deal programme on cannabis? Will my right hon. Friend also join me in encouraging more imaginative best practice sharing?

Charles Clarke: I certainly will welcome my hon. Friend's police colleagues. She has briefed me on that exchange visit. It fits in entirely with the point that I made to the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) earlier: that we have to improve our police work in these areas. The community policing in places such as Clay Cross, Holmewood, North Wingfield and Grassmoor is important from that point of view.

John Greenway: Had the previous Home Secretary not declassified cannabis, there is no way that the evidence that the Home Secretary has courageously given the House today would have justified his announcing such a declassification today. He has said that he has an open mind. Will he ensure that a priority for his research programme will be to research the use of cannabis by the young people to whom my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) referred? His experience is the same as that of every constituency represented in the House: this is destroying young people's lives, but they are unlikely to respond to the police. We are losing street-worker programmes through a lack of funding and we need to reinstate them. I hope that the Home Secretary will have a conversation with me about how to tackle that matter, because unless we can get those young people to co-operate, their lives will be ruined.

Charles Clarke: I am happy to have a conversation with the hon. Gentleman about those matters and I respect his own police experience, which informs the way he looks at some of these questions. I agree that the question of police strategy is critical. Our neighbourhood policing strategy and police teams in every locality are important means of tackling that. It is critical to focus on the very large numbers of people who are consuming the drug, and I hope that the ACPO strategy, which will be published in due course, is able to do that.

Paul Flynn: Should we not take advantage of the Leader of the Opposition's intelligent and progressive views on drugs in order to achieve a consensus and look at what we are doing today, which is based on evidence? What has happened? There were dire warnings that reclassification would lead to an increase in cannabis. It has not. Why do we not look to Portugal, Holland, Australia and other countries and see what the practical outcomes are? This country had 30 years of harsh penalties, followed by even harsher penalties, and has ended up with greater drug use and drug problems than any other country. Why cannot we have a royal commission, or look again at the balanced views of the Health Committee? Of course, I welcome the report and the health campaign, so long as it is balanced with a campaign against the dreadful harm caused by alcohol, tobacco and medicinal drugs.

Charles Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend that one needs to proceed on the basis of evidence. We have sometimes argued about what the evidence tells us, but that is part of the general discussion. Sometimes the battle between alcohol and tobacco, and cannabis is not constructive for the discussion. As I have said, our approach should always be to reduce consumption of all drugs and to work in that way. I look forward to hearing the outcome of the conversation between my hon. Friend and the Leader of the Opposition about how their approaches to legalisation could inform the whole House. That might be an unholy alliance, but nevertheless an interesting and constructive one.

Christopher Chope: How can we take the Home Secretary seriously when we know that his Department turns a blind eye to the increasingly widespread use of cannabis inside prisons by convicted prisoners and prison staff?

Charles Clarke: The hon. Gentleman's statement is entirely untrue. It is not the case that a blind eye is turned. It is the case that throughout our prison system there are major programmes to reduce drug abuse. What I do say, and I conceded it in my statement earlier, is that we need a renewed focus against cannabis use of all kinds from the police and elsewhere. That is what I have announced today.

Joan Ruddock: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his response to the advisory council today. With more than 9 million people admitting to taking the drug at some time and about 10 per cent. saying that they have taken it in the past year, it appears to me that the classification status is not the issue. Will he confirm that the greatest risk on mental health grounds is to young people, and will he ensure that a comprehensive programme on healthy living, reduction and avoidance of all harms be made available in our primary schools, where it is most necessary, so that young children do not indulge in temptation?

Charles Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend. That is why I am announcing today joint work with the Secretary of State for Education and Skills in relation to schools and with the Secretary of State for Health in relation to the public health White Paper to focus on precisely the young people whom my hon. Friend identifies.

Pete Wishart: I, too, welcome the review of classification. Some of us have been advocating that for years. Will the Secretary of State assure me that any new system will highlight the relative dangers of different drugs and, most importantly, be credible and realistic, especially for young people?

Charles Clarke: I am surprised to say that I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Clarity is the most important thing. One of the biggest criticisms of the current classification system is that it does not illuminate debate and understanding among the young people who are affected by it. That is one of the reasons that I have decided to undertake an examination of this matter. It is unfortunate, although I understand why it happens, that all debate around the question is on the classification issue. A more important debate is the education programme, the health programme, policing and those other points.

Brian Iddon: The fact is that tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, is the drug and, furthermore, there are more than 20 varieties of the cannabis plant, from hemp, which contains 0 per cent. THC, to skunk, which contains very high quantities of THC. I welcome my right hon. Friend's attempts to re-engage young people in the education debate, but would he give them the correct facts, so that they can avoid skunk, if and when—hopefully not—they choose to buy cannabis on the street?

Charles Clarke: My hon. Friend is entirely correct. I pay tribute to his scientific work to try to get those issues across. Drugs education in schools is far more sophisticated than it used to be. For example, some of the software packages, which I know he is aware of, draw out the point that he has made. However, he is right to say that we must focus on real understanding. That is what our education programme will do.

Nigel Evans: The initial report of the advisory council said that cannabis was harmful, and I was amazed that it came up with the recommendation that it did. It has now published another report that says that it is hugely damaging and come up with the wrong conclusion yet again. What is the compelling evidence against reclassification back to B? If the Home Secretary is looking for clarity and wants to send the right signals to young people, surely the best way of doing that is by reclassifying the drug as a class B drug.
	I support the Home Secretary's advertising campaign to get across the message about how damaging cannabis can be. It is not a soft drug; it is very harmful and damaging—the new psychiatric evidence shows what cannabis can do. How much will he spend on advertising how harmful cannabis is? As he will remember, when he reclassified initially, he had to spend £1 million to get the message across that cannabis was still illegal. How much will he spend this time?

Charles Clarke: I cannot give the House the figure at this moment, but we have a very substantial advertising spend already in this area, and the point about working with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Education and Skills and for Health is that it brings in increased resources. The reason why the advisory council recommended class C rather than classes A or B is that it went through precisely the process that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) identified, of trying to examine the medical harm of particular forms of drugs, all of which are illegal, and all of which do harm. It gave a scientific assessment, and I have to take serious account of that—which is what I have done. However, as I said in answer to an earlier question, I do not think that medical harm is the only consideration; there is also harm to society and a range of other questions. That is why I believe that we need to reconsider the classification system. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is sometimes confusion in the messages that emerge. We need a system that does not confuse, but gives clarity.

Laura Moffatt: Grown-up Governments genuinely try to reduce the harm from dangerous drugs, and I welcome my right hon. Friend's reference to drugs such as Rohypnol, which are of increasing concern to women. Will he elaborate on what he said earlier and tell us exactly how and when women will be able to feel much more protected from those dangerous drugs, which they fear so much?

Charles Clarke: My hon. Friend is correct. I have been very concerned, and I have seen many cases myself, as I am sure many other Members have, of truly appalling crimes committed as a result of date-rape drugs, including the one that she mentioned. That is why I took the view that it is necessary to understand more effectively the harm that drugs do, and to get them better located. To be candid, I think that there has sometimes been a culture of denial of the effect of those drugs, and those crimes, in certain areas. We need to change that by being completely up-front, to examine the classifications and to say that we will deal with all the harms—and I hope that we can succeed in doing that.

Bob Spink: Does the Secretary of State agree that his disappointing and confusing refusal to reclassify cannabis today will lead to an increase in the need for rehabilitation places for users of class A drugs, because cannabis is a stepping-stone drug?

Charles Clarke: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is expressing the confusion that I have referred to throughout this discussion. What has the impact that he described on the use of class A drugs is the number of people who use cannabis. The key question is how best to reduce the use of cannabis. The subsidiary question is: what role does classification, as opposed to education, health and policing campaigns and so on, play in that? In this statement I have tried to convey what I think is the true point: that the range of attacks on cannabis consumption needs to be enhanced. I have set out a number of means of doing that, and that should be our priority.

Julian Lewis: Is it not obvious that the Home Secretary is deeply uncomfortable with the statement that he has made, and that if he had been Home Secretary when the decision to reclassify was taken, he would not have made the decision that his predecessor did? Is it not also obvious that he has secured some sort of deal with his colleagues in the Cabinet that, in return for taking the decision not to upgrade the classification again, he can try to get round the problem by addressing the whole issue of classification? He is a loyal team player, but he is letting down the people who ought to be able to depend on him to say what he really believes.

Charles Clarke: The short answer to that is no—and give up the conspiracy theories.

Lindsay Hoyle: I welcome my right hon. Friend's education policies about the dangers of cannabis, but there is a much better way to get a clearer message across—and that is reclassification. We promised to be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. The best way to do that would be to reclassify. Let us have a free vote in the House, and let Members decide the policy.

Charles Clarke: I am, of course, grateful for my hon. Friend's comments on this question. I hope that he will agree—although he may not—that education, health, policing, the attack on dealing and on growing and production, and the classification system all go side by side in this debate. We may disagree about classification, but I hope that he will accept that we have an overall strategy across the whole range.

Colin Breed: The Secretary of State will know that most schools have a policy whereby if cannabis is found on students on school premises, that normally results in an immediate and permanent exclusion. Yet the police are usually involved, and they often only caution the person. Most parents believe that the draconian penalty exacted by the school has a far greater effect on the child than the caution by the police. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to examine the guidance both for schools and for the police, so that when pupils are found with cannabis on school premises, there is a logical penalty somewhere between those two extremes?

Charles Clarke: There are two points to make. The first is that, as the hon. Gentleman knows, since 1 January the police have had the power to arrest for any offence, including the actions that he describes—which are offences. That is a matter for the police, irrespective of the actual offence. Secondly, the question that the hon. Gentleman asks is the precise reason why I have asked for stronger ACPO guidelines on such matters, and why ACPO has agreed to provide stronger guidelines, which will be published in due course, to address those points.

John Mann: The Hemp Embassy in Nimbin, Australia is the spiritual home of the legalise cannabis campaign, and it has said that there is a particular problem with home-grown cannabis. Can the Home Secretary assure the House that he will take exactly the opposite approach to that suggested by the Liberal Democrats towards the policing issues with home-grown cannabis?

Charles Clarke: My hon. Friend is correct. That is why I have focused on policing strategies, because those relationships are so important. My hon. Friend has a strong and distinguished record in examining the issueof drug abuse, particularly in working-class communities, and I take his advice seriously. I think that it is important to refocus the policing issue, so as to hit the problem precisely as he describes.

Angela Watkinson: I welcome the Home Secretary's acknowledgment of the links between mental illness and cannabis use, but I am disappointed that he does not find that evidence alone sufficient to reclassify it to class B. When he is undertaking his review of the general classification of drugs, may I urge him to give real weight to the gateway properties of cannabis, and the fact that it leads so many users on to hard drugs?

Charles Clarke: I can give the hon. Lady that assurance. She has a distinguished record of contribution to this debate, and she is right to point out that relationship. I only hope that she can persuade the leader of her party of the merits of her approach.

John Robertson: I echo the sentiments of my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) on reclassification, but there are many good things in my right hon. Friend's statement that are pleasing to my constituents and me. Health and education are devolved matters in the devolved Administrations, so will my right hon. Friend ensure that any good health and education initiatives that come out of this for England and Wales are taken care of in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales as well?

Charles Clarke: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his strong campaigning on these issues over a considerable period. Yes, I can give him the assurance that he seeks. I had a meeting earlier this week with the First Minister, discussing ways of improving our co-operation, and this is one of those matters on which co-operation can bring mutual benefits.

Tim Loughton: I welcome the Secretary of State's proposals, particularly on education and on targeting supply. I especially welcome his forceful comments on the dangerous links with mental health, because such comments were certainly not forthcoming at the time of reclassification by his predecessor, despite the emerging evidence. Why, however, did the advisory council call for evidence from only one mental health charity? On 5 January, the right hon. Gentleman said:
	"The thing that worries me most is confusion among the punters about what the legal status of cannabis is".
	Would not the best way of combating that confusion be to admit that his predecessor was wrong to reclassify, and to reverse that decision now while his review is going on, thereby sending out a strong message to everybody, "There is no confusion: cannabis is bad"?

Charles Clarke: It was for the advisory council to decide how to conduct its evidence taking and consideration of the issues. It is an independent body—rightly so—so I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's first question. On his second question, I think that I have dealt with the issues that he raised, but I want to emphasise to the House the importance of evidence and research on this subject. That is why I have announced today that we will conduct significantly more research, especially into the relationship with mental health.

Lynne Jones: I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend on accepting the advisory council's recommendations and on basing his decisions on the evidence, rather than on knee-jerk reactions. If it leads to more objective policies to achieve our aim of reducing drug use, I also welcome the review. Does my right hon. Friend agree with Rethink, formerly known as the National Schizophrenia Fellowship, which has long campaigned for us to recognise the psychosis-inducing dangers of cannabis, that an adequately resourced health education campaign—particularly one targeted at school-age children and people in contact with mental health services—and better health care will do more to reduce cannabis use than will dragging thousands more people through the courts?

Charles Clarke: Without judging whether such a campaign would do more or less in that regard, I certainly agree that it would do a great deal, which is why we need to focus effort there. I pay tribute to the work of the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), who has put resources into health education for precisely the reasons that my hon. Friend suggests.

Mark Francois: I sense that the Home Secretary is somewhat torn on this issue, so may I emphasise the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) and several others? One key difference and a very important point to be made in this debate is that the cannabis available on the street today, such as skunk, is much more powerful and dangerous than that which was available 10 or 15 years ago. Does he accept that there is an inherent contradiction between announcing a set of measures that are supposed to combat antisocial behaviour, and announcing just over a week later the decision to refuse to reclassify a drug that is behind so much of that behaviour? It makes no sense.

Charles Clarke: I know that the hon. Gentleman is a very sensitive flower, so I appreciate his concern for my sensitivities. I commend to him the advisory council's report, which looks carefully at the very point that he makes about the trend in cannabis strength over time. This is a critically important issue in terms of scientific research, and if he reads the report he will see that one reason why the advisory council recommends that more work be done on it is that it is difficult to do good scientific work on understanding the strength of cannabis on the street in different areas. The advisory council focuses on that point, and it is precisely the reason why we need to do the research that I announced.

Tony Lloyd: May I, too, welcome the tone of my right hon. Friend's statement, which rejects the moral outrage that we hear from Opposition Members and insists on an evidence-based approach? Frankly, our education programme will be credible and will work only if people accept the basis on which it is formed. Like others, I have a lot more faith in giving young people credible messages through an education programme than I do in criminalising a generation of people who do not believe that criminalisation will deter them, or their peer group, from using cannabis.

Charles Clarke: I understand that point, but I do think it very important to make it clear that cannabis is an illegal drug that carries, potentially, a two-year penalty. I know that there are those who argue—I should be interested to hear my hon. Friend's view—that that penalty should be removed and that cannabis should be legalised. The Leader of the Opposition has wavered and flip-flopped on the question of which view to adopt, but I am of the view that we should not legalise. Rather, we should ensure, in precisely the way that my hon. Friend says, that people understand the consequences of their decision to consume cannabis.

David Burrowes: Is it not true that if we reclassified cannabis, we could spend more time debating and focusing on education and health and proper treatment? The decision not to reclassify shows a profound misunderstanding of what I, as a criminal solicitor, have seen happening on the ground over many years. There is inconsistency and chaos in the approach taken by the police in deciding whether to arrest cannabis users, and in the approach taken by divisions such as Enfield and Haringey. If and when such cases ever do get court, there are profound differences in the ways in which magistrates deal with them. Is there not a profound misunderstanding of the effect of cannabis on young people, which I have witnessed over many years? Cannabis abuse has led to many broken lives, and today's decision will not deal properly with the problem. Many such people now litter Pentonville and Chase Farm mental health unit. Will not today's decision be a profound disappointment to all those families who want the message to be sent out that cannabis is illegal and has a serious effect?

Charles Clarke: That, of course, is precisely the message that I am trying to send, and I hope that all Members of the House will support the Government in doing just that.

Geraldine Smith: I welcome my right hon. Friend's decision to review the whole drug classification system, which is confusing. I also welcome the fact that he takes the issue of cannabis seriously and appreciates that it is a dangerous drug; there are Members of this House who do not appear to appreciate its dangers. I further welcome his education programme, which will prove important for young people, but does he not realise that the failure to reclassify could send out confusing signals and undermine his education programme?

Charles Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments. She has put her finger on precisely the issue that I found most difficult in reaching a view on these matters. I am conscious of her point about sending out signals, and dealing with that is a real issue; but I came to the view, which I of course defend, that we need to look at the situation in the round and to re-examine the classification system. I repeat that I was worried about precisely the point that my hon. Friend makes, but I believe that today's proposals and the message that we are sending are clear and unequivocal.

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	National Lottery Bill

As amended in the Committee, considered.

New Clause 1
	 — 
	Reports by distributing bodies

'After section 25E of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 (c. 39) (inserted by section 11 of this Act) insert—
	"25F   Reports by distributing bodies
	(1)   As soon as possible after the end of every financial year, distributing bodies specified under section 23 shall make a report to the Secretary of State about how decisions on the awards made during that year have been reached.
	(2)   Matters which may be dealt with in a report under subsection (1) include—
	(a)   the independence of funding decisions;
	(b)   the principles applied to maintain the distinction between core government expenditure and lottery funding; and
	(c)   the proportion of funding that has been allocated to bodies (other than public bodies or local authorities) whose activities are carried on not for profit.
	(3)   The Secretary of State shall lay a copy of every report received by him under this section before Parliament.".'.—[Mr. Don Foster.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Don Foster: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:New clause 2—Additionality—
	'After section 25E of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 (c. 39) (inserted by section 11 of this Act) insert—
	"25F   The additionality principle
	(1)   A body which distributes money under section 25(1) shall have regard to the principle that funding under that section should not be provided for the provision of services, benefits and capital works which would usually be provided by government, when—
	(a)   determining the persons to whom, the purposes for which and the conditions subject to which the body distributes any money under section 25(1);
	(b)   preparing, adopting, reviewing, modifying or replacing a strategic plan under section 25C or 25D.
	(2)   The Secretary of State shall have regard, where relevant, to the principle that funding under that section should not be provided for the provision of services, benefits, and capital works which would usually be provided by government, when giving any direction under sections 26 or 36E.".'.

Don Foster: I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) on his elevation to the shadow Department for Culture, Media and Sport team. I am sure that all who have followed the National Lottery Bill debate will enjoy his contribution today. It is said that a week is a long time in politics, but those who have studied the Bill will know that, unfortunately, it has taken a very long time to reach this stage. It is some 60 weeks since it was given its First Reading, on 25 November 2004, and here we are still working our way through it.
	I want to make clear, as I did in Committee, my own position regarding the national lottery. I believe that my party was wrong to oppose establishing the lottery all those years ago. The evidence is very clear that it has been of enormous benefit to many communities throughout the country. Indeed, since it began, some £17 billion to £18 billion has been given to good causes, thereby benefiting people from all walks of life.
	Some 200,000 grants have been made and, pleasingly, a very large proportion of them have been relatively small—some £5,000 or less—and have brought real benefit to local communities. There may have been disagreement on the odd lottery grant here and there, but in general everybody acknowledges that those awards have brought real and tangible benefits to such communities. My own community of Bath has received some £50 million in lottery grants over the years, including money for Bath university's new sports training village, a facility that I believe will enable us to capitalise fully on the benefits of the 2012 Olympics.

Richard Caborn: Yes.

Don Foster: The Minister, from a sedentary position, gives a confidence boost to Bath's bid. I am delighted at that.
	Parts of the Bill will be criticised today, but I stress that my party supports much of it. For example, the establishment of a legal framework for the Big Lottery Fund is especially welcome, as that organisation has operated for 18 months before being allowed to come into formal existence. However, our biggest disagreement with the Government has to do with additionality, the subject of new clause 1, as we are concerned about the Government's tendency to try to get their hands on lottery money.
	Sir John Major set up the lottery when he was Prime Minister, and made it clear that the money raised would "not replace public expenditure". In 1997, the present Prime Minister used similar words, saying that it would not be right
	"to use Lottery money to pay for things that are the Government's responsibilities."
	More recently, the Minister responding to this debate said in Standing Committee that lottery money was "special" and that it
	"should add to, not substitute for, Government expenditure"—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 3 November 2005; c. 240.]
	Last June, the Minister told the House that additionality was
	"an important principle that should be embodied in future legislation."—[Official Report, 14 June 2005; Vol. 434, c. 168.]
	That is exactly why we have tabled new clause 1; to put into effect what the Minister said that he wanted. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster will move new clause 2 shortly. Both it and new clause 1 are attempts to give the Minister what he said he wanted and ensure that the Bill deals with the question of additionality. If new clause 2 were to be pressed to a Division, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my party would support it.
	The public also believe that additionality is an important matter. Almost three-quarters of respondents to a 2003 YouGov poll said that it was "vitally important" that lottery distribution remain independent of Government interference. We must ensure that lottery money is not used as a slush fund by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, something that has happened far too often already.
	For example, £93 million of lottery funds has been spent on magnetic resonance imaging scanners for the NHS, and £42 million on providing fruit in school. That led Sir Clive Booth, the Big Lottery Fund's excellent chairman, to say that the
	"days of the government issuing instructions over Lottery cash for schemes such as the distribution of fruit to schoolchildren are gone".
	I hope that is true but, to make sure, we must get a guarantee enshrined in the Bill.
	The Culture, Media and Sport Committee expressed concern about this matter in its 2003–04 report. It stated:
	"The National Lottery has meant that there has been an erosion, in real terms, of the DCMS core funding."
	Increasingly, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is not spending as much money, as a proportion of gross domestic product, as it used to, but that is because it has come to rely increasingly on money from the various lottery distributors.
	Another aspect of the problem is that there is increasing confusion about which expenditure comes from the DCMS and which comes from the lottery. I shall give two examples. On the one hand, the Government claim credit for projects that in fact are funded by the lottery; on the other, they try to pass the buck for failure to the lottery. Parliamentary answers last November revealed that one Department incorrectly claimed credit for a supposedly independent project that was successful, whereas a Minister in another Department has blamed the lottery for unwise Government spending.
	A report from the Department for Trade and Industry said that the £1.9 million spent on renewable energy research into biomass was funded by "DTI and lottery spend". However, further questions uncovered the fact that none of the money spent on that research came from the DTI. In other words, the Government were claiming credit for research that was funded entirely by the lottery.
	On 31 October last year, I asked a parliamentary question about a highly contentious sports questionnaire survey that was criticised by various newspapers. The survey cost £6 million, but the Government answered that the money came from the national lottery. I pursued the matter, and several weeks later the DCMS admitted that the original answer was incorrect and that the vast majority of funding for that controversial project came from the Department. That shows that the Government have tried to confuse the public about what is lottery money and what is departmental money.
	Have the Government plundered lottery money? There are many arguments about that, but today's Daily Mail carries an article about a report from the Centre for Policy Studies. That is a Conservative-leaning think tank, but that does not mean that it is always wrong. The newspaper uses the headline "Labour Has 'Plundered Billions out of the Lottery'", and its analysis may go a little far. However, the centre's website carries the preface to the report, which I understand will be published tomorrow, and it makes very interesting reading. In it, Sir John Major—who, as I noted earlier, founded the lottery—states:
	"From the outset, I insisted that Lottery money should be used for additional spending on causes or activities that the taxpayer should not be expected to cover . . . When the Lottery Bill was going through Parliament, the Labour Opposition was at pains to stress the importance of Government keeping an arms-length relationship from the Lottery and, in particular, grant distribution. But, since it took power, Labour has diverted Lottery funding into areas that have historically been funded by the Exchequer. Indeed, the "Big Lottery Fund" has a specific remit to fund health, education and environment projects when taxpayers would rightly expect many of these projects to be funded directly by Government. The Labour Government's deliberate muddying of the waters between Exchequer and Lottery revenues is an unwelcome development and which, as its creator, dismays me greatly."

David Taylor: I am often in a position to say to the Daily Mail, "Now, come on", but I rarely say that to the hon. Gentleman, who takes a sensible approach to such matters. If every penny piece that the lottery raised annually for good causes were to be transferred to the Government, it would pay for about a day's worth of public expenditure; £1.5 billion in about £500 billion. It is important to put the issue into context and realise that we are talking about relatively marginal amounts.

Don Foster: While I have some sympathy with those remarks, I made it clear earlier that the grants from the national lottery have been of enormous benefit to many communities. Some 200,000 grants have been made, including to projects in my constituency. The amounts of money may be comparatively small, but the benefit is enormous and the impact on the communities has been tremendous. Let us not belittle the importance of lottery money. We need to get the process for making decisions on how that money is spent right and ensure that it is separate from the Government's decisions. We have to have a clear independence of lottery distribution decisions from Government. That is what the new clause is about.

David Taylor: I am happy to clarify my earlier remarks. I was trying to say that although constituencies, including the hon. Gentleman's and mine, have benefited significantly—especially in economic, social and environmental regeneration projects—the impact on Government expenditure of a wholesale transfer of the lottery money to their coffers would be tiny. Therefore, what would be the incentive for the Government to do that? Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Government are trying to drive down the tax bill to the cost of those buying lottery tickets?

Don Foster: The hon. Gentleman suggests that I am merely suggesting that the Exchequer has got its sticky little mitts on lottery money. I am not suggesting it; I am telling the House that that is what has happened. The New Opportunities Fund was deliberately established to take over responsibility for funding aspects of much needed service delivery from the Exchequer. The evidence is clear. I accept that the Daily Mail report and, possibly, the think-tank report went a bit overboard and, indeed, I said so earlier, but I have already given several other examples.

Hugo Swire: If the hon. Gentleman had finished the preface written by Sir John Major, which was not quoted in the Daily Mail, he would have seen that Sir John referred to the millennium fund, which wound up at the end of 2000. He intended that the resources released from that should be used to promote school sports. Instead, he says, the money was siphoned off by the Labour Government. That goes some way to answering the comments by the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor). It is not necessarily the quantity of money, but the principle.

Don Foster: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there was more to the preface. I was hoping that in the spirit of comradely friendship I would not be tempted into commenting on that aspect of Sir John Major's remarks, but now that the hon. Gentleman has provoked me I should, in fairness to the House, point out that the Conservatives' view of the issue of additionality is somewhat ambiguous. The hon. Gentleman raises the issue of sport, so I must now point out that that ambiguity was demonstrated in their manifesto at the last election, when their much heralded Club2School sport scheme was to have been funded by the national lottery. I have pointed that out to the Conservatives before and they have said, "Oh no, we got it wrong, we won't ever do it again." However, their new leader was at it again more recently, on 5 January. He was asked who would fund his idea for a new school leaver programme policy, and he replied:
	"Well, we want to look at that, there is the National Lottery, there are all sorts of programmes we can access."
	I accept that he did not say that funding would come from the national lottery, but clearly it was a possible source.

Mark Field: The hon. Gentleman will be glad that I am here to protect the honour of my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron). The hon. Gentleman has rightly quoted the transcript, but my right hon. Friend continued his remarks to Mr. Naughtie on the "Today" programme by saying:
	"Jim, I can't pre-judge it because I'm having a meeting with the Prince's Trust and the Duke of Edinburgh Award scheme and the National Union of Teachers are coming in".
	The lottery was one of a number of options that my right hon. Friend put forward in that interview for funding the national school leaver programme. No commitment has been made that contradicts our proposals in new clause 2.

Don Foster: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps we have now clarified that point and could now concentrate our remarks on the new clause.

Don Foster: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I would point out that the hon. Gentleman has just given a lengthier version of the cover that I had already given to the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron). However, you rightly chide us to move on from that issue.
	Notwithstanding the occasional blemishes on the record of parties on the issue, all the parties have said that they believe that additionality is a crucial issue. All parties have said that they do not wish to see the Government, whoever is in power, interfering in national lottery decisions. Given that occasionally people have strayed from that commitment, would it not be helpful to have legislation that ensured that that does not happen again in the future?
	During the passage of the national lottery legislation in 1993, and the changes made to it in 1998, attempts were made to add additionality to it. We have already had attempts by the Conservative party and by me to place something in the Bill. Those were attempts to define additionality, but they fell on stony ground. Indeed, the Minister rejected our proposal for a definition of additionality in Committee because he said that it would result in bureaucracy. I am not sure that that is a good reason, but our attempt was rejected for that and, no doubt, several other reasons.
	Today, I am taking a new approach that might find favour with the Government and obtain the support of the House. We do not suggest a definition of additionality but that the Bill should contain a requirement that the distributing bodies report annually on how they had reached their funding decisions. That would include the two crucial questions of additionality; how independence from the Government was maintained and what principles were used to maintain the distinction between core Government funding and the causes that the bodies had supported.
	I know that many of the distributing bodies have already committed themselves to annual reports on a variety of issues. For example, the Big Lottery Fund is already committed to reporting specifically on the additionality issue. Under the new clause, we seek to place in the Bill the commitment that we have received from the biggest lottery distributor and perhaps to push the other distributors to follow suit, so that there is no opportunity to backslide in future.
	We have support from many quarters for the route that we have chosen. The National Council for Voluntary Organisations said:
	"We believe that these commitments must be enshrined on the face of the Bill if they are to be meaningful and lasting."
	The National Campaign for the Arts said:
	"The New Clause is a modest attempt to ensure that the line between Government and Lottery cash cannot become ever more blurred . . . If inappropriate political pressure is being put on the Lottery distributors, then the public should be made aware of it. If, as is insisted, no such pressure is being exerted, then there can be nothing to fear from the New Clause."
	The Minister has given support to the new clause. In Committee, he said:
	"Somebody has to define the concept for the purpose of day-to-day operations, but if the concept were tied down to a definition that would be challengeable in law, those funds might be put into all types of litigation."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 3 November 2005; c. 244.]
	He will not go down the route of placing such a definition in the Bill—although he might be persuaded to do so, given new clause 2—but he has at least made it clear that he wants something similar in the Bill and that he believes that annual reports on such issues should be produced. That is why it is crucial that the Minister should be prepared to support new clause 1, which is a modest attempt to ensure that we get something in the Bill to ensure that there is never again the possibility of blurring the distinction between national lottery money and Government-funded activity.

Mark Field: Under new clause 2, we would introduce into the National Lottery Act 1993 a requirement to consider the additionality principle. I was very interested to hear what the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) had to say—we would very much support new clause 1 in any vote, if one is necessary—but I should like to explore one area with him, and perhaps the Minister will take my observation on board. Are there any circumstances in which certain projects could be paid for partly from the lottery and partly from Government expenditure? It was not entirely clear whether that could be possible with certain projects—for example, large-scale research. Again, we need to have a sense of transparency. We worry that too much in the Bill is entirely opaque.
	We propose a definition of additionality in new clause 2, which states that
	"funding should not be provided for the provision of services, benefits, and capital works which would usually be provided by government".
	New clause 2 goes somewhat further than new clause 1. The first subsection of our new clause would apply that principle to the distributing bodies when distributing money or making or reviewing their strategic plans. The second subsection would apply the same principle to the Secretary of State or his Ministers when making directions to the Big Lottery Fund or other distributing bodies under section 36E of the 1993 Act.
	As has become apparent, there is a plethora of new distributing bodies—Sports Council-related bodies, those related to the arts and the Heritage Lottery Fund, and so on. From the national lottery's inception, the Government have stated their commitment to the principle of additionality during the debates that took place when the lottery was being established and in those that have taken place since May 1997.

David Taylor: The hon. Gentleman says that new clause 2, which was tabled by the Conservatives, would tighten up the arrangements in some respects, but it suggests that lottery distributors should consider whether the Government "would usually be" the source of the provision. The word "usually" implies that a category of activities and projects would not fall within the proposed definition. How on earth will the lottery bodies make a distinction between the two? Unless we state that the Government will always make such provision—that could be impractical as well—new clause 2 is a dead letter, is it not?

Mark Field: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. However, in fairness, we were trying to appreciate the fact that there are grey areas at times. We would like to think that the issue was entirely straightforward, but our contention is that that grey area has been greatly abused by the way in which the Government have sought to allow the Big Lottery Fund to make its own distributions.
	As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, if we were to use the word "always", the provision could be open to all sorts of abuse. Indeed, the Government might be given an opportunity to walk away very happily from certain obligations. They could rely entirely on funding those obligations from lottery funds. We used the word "usually" to try, as far as possible, to adopt a pragmatic approach, while recognising that grey areas of expenditure may arise sometimes. Such financial provision might be covered generally by lottery funding, but also by Government expenditure—we are trying to get that balance right. Our contention—I think it is also that of the Liberal Democrats—is that we have not got that balance entirely right and that, recently, a coach and horses has been driven through the original idea and the original causes of the 1993 Act.
	In the 1992 White Paper, in which the national lottery was initially suggested, it was stated that the lottery would fund only projects additional to those that would otherwise be funded by the public through general taxation. In written evidence to the fifth report of 2003–04 of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport defined the principle of additionality as not allowing lottery funding to
	"become a substitute for funding that would normally fall into mainstream Government spending"
	and stated that it
	"remains firmly committed to that principle."
	The Select Committee's report on the reform of the national lottery said:
	"Many witnesses told the Committee that the principle of additionality was becoming increasingly eroded."
	Obviously, those witnesses are experts in the field. It continued:
	"The Lottery Council told us that 'additionality is something we take a strong line on, and we think that that line is getting blurred' and that 'there is a great deal of concern about the erosion of the additionality principle.' The NCVO believed that 'Lottery funding should be independent from Government but accountable to Parliament; that is should be additional to what should be properly spent by Government and not a substitute for it.' It was concerned that that was not happening."
	The Select Committee therefore found in its conclusion that the additionality principle was being eroded, and it deplored that erosion in paragraph 165 of the report to which I referred.
	We believe that it is necessary to include provisions on additionality in the Bill. New clause 2 would do that in a practical fashion by requiring distributing bodies and the Secretary of State to have regard to the principle when exercising their relevant functions under the Bill.
	We contend that the Government have betrayed the lottery's founding principles by using lottery money for spending that should have come from taxes. Only this morning, as the hon. Member for Bath pointed out, the  right-of-centre Centre for Policy Studies—[Interruption.] It is Conservative supporting, at least. The centre called for a stop to the Government's "larceny" and "plundering". Perhaps we would not use such emotive terms in this era of modernised Conservative thinking, but none the less there is little doubt that lottery money has been used, and increasingly will be used, to bail out the Government on some of their spending plans.
	We fear that if the Bill that is passed does not address additionality, we will simply entrench and extend the use of lottery funds for matters that should be met out of general taxation. As I am sure that the Minister will point out, there are sometimes grey areas regarding lottery expenditure, and it was thus difficult to couch the new clauses in exact terms. However, it is also clear that we have moved significantly away from the founding principles of the lottery.
	We believe that the Labour Government are, via the Big Lottery Fund and the Heritage Lottery Fund, imposing on distributing bodies a mandatory policy direction that is in line with Government objectives. For example, a significant proportion of Heritage Lottery Fund grants are awarded to schemes that can show a measurable contribution towards addressing social and economic deprivation. We have no objection to the idea of addressing that problem, but we must question whether lottery money should be expended in such a way.
	I was advised only this week by Trevor Watkins of Leonard Cheshire that a concentration on specific areas of the United Kingdom for eligibility has led to unnecessary duplication in bureaucracy for charities that work throughout the UK. The absence of a UK-wide Big Lottery Fund will mean that multiple applications for grants under the lottery will be required, which could be wasteful and create a strong disincentive for small nationwide charities to apply for funds to which they would otherwise be entitled.
	I was sorry that the hon. Member for Bath stole my thunder by citing an entire quotation from the former Prime Minister, Sir John Major, during whose premiership the lottery was founded. However, I shall reiterate a few of those words. Sir John Major rightly said:
	"When the Lottery Bill was going through Parliament, the Labour Opposition was at pains to stress the importance of government keeping an arms-length relationship from the Lottery and, in particular, grant distribution. But, since it took power, Labour has diverted Lottery funding into areas that have historically been funded by the Exchequer."
	We tabled new clause 2 as an attempt to row back from that regrettable tendency, which undermines many of the objectives that are close to the hearts of the many millions of our fellow countrymen who play the national lottery. I hope that the Minister will give serious consideration to not only new clause 2, but new clause 1. We await his views with interest, but unless we are entirely satisfied, I give notice that we will press the matter to a Division.

Charles Walker: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to make a small contribution to the debate. It is always nice to speak to a packed House. I am sure that hon. Members are waiting with bated breath for my words of wisdom—[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] I thank hon. Members very much.
	Health, education and the environment are all hugely important things and they are quite rightly the responsibility of the Government. When the people of this country voted for the Government, they thought that they were voting for a Government who would meet their health, education and environment needs. However, they were not aware that the Government were going to use the national lottery as a means of topping up spending that should be central Government expenditure. If the British public knew what was going on today, they would be a trifle concerned.
	We heard from the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) about the various initiatives that have been funded by lottery money already. Some 529 pieces of cancer scanning equipment have been funded at a cost of £93 million. Of course that equipment is hugely important and much welcomed by those whose lives it saves, but should it be funded by lottery money, or through central taxation? We have set up healthy living centres at a cost of £300 million and information and communications technology training for teachers and school librarians at a cost of £231 million. Out-of-school learning hours have been funded at a cost of £180 million. Those are vast sums of money. The hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor), who is no longer in the Chamber, suggested that we were talking about trifles and mere pennies, but we are not—we are talking about upwards of £1 billion. The Treasury already takes 12 per cent. of all money spent on the national lottery.

Don Foster: The hon. Gentleman adds to my list of examples. Does he accept that the ultimate example of funding by the lottery that clearly should have been provided by the Exchequer was the use of £111,000 for a heart failure nurse specialist at one of our hospitals?

Charles Walker: I accept the hon. Gentleman's excellent intervention. It is a good intervention because it is the first that I have ever taken. In a sense, he has broken my virginity, and I thank him for that. Very pleasurable it was, too—he was very gentle.

Don Foster: I was delighted to have had the opportunity to do that, and I am delighted now that I have been able to do it twice.

Charles Walker: It was as pleasurable the second time.
	Things that should have been funded by central Government have, in fact, been funded by the lottery. All those things are hugely important, but the lottery was established to fund the additional things in life: sport, the arts and heritage—those little extras that make life worth living both nationally and as part of communities. I hope that the Minister takes our concerns on board. They were put to him in Committee. I hope that he has heard them again and will reconsider his position.

Richard Caborn: I welcome the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) to his new position on the Front Bench team of the Department for Culture, Media and Sports. I hope that we have some good debates.
	Additionality is an important part of the lottery. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) has been helpful and he reflected what was said in Committee. However, I again want to put things in context. Before we introduced the Bill, there was wide consultation between 2004 and 2005 to discover what the public wanted. Hon. Members know, because it was brought up in Committee and is on the record, that only 6 per cent. of those who responded to the questionnaires as part of the consultation mentioned additionality. Of the themes that we put forward for consultation, nearly 60 per cent. of respondents acknowledged the three themes that the Big Lottery Fund would adopt. They thought that those were in tune with the things on which the lottery moneys should be spent. It is not without some major consultation that we introduced the Bill.

Don Foster: Will the Minister acknowledge that there is a huge difference between what he is referring to, which is the Big Lottery Fund engaging in wide-scale public consultation on how the money should be spent, and what happened when the Labour Government introduced the New Opportunities Fund and specified precisely what the money should be spent on? That is the big distinction.

Richard Caborn: Against that background of the New Opportunities Fund, all I can say is that those were the general opinions of the public. They were reflected in their answers to the consultation. As I said, the themes that emerged from that are in tune with their opinions. They are now embodied in the Bill and the directions, at a high level, to the Big Lottery Fund. We have the evidence.
	I must say that that research is far better than the research carried out by the Centre for Policy Studies. Ruth Lea astounds me sometimes. I do not know how, as an economist, she adds the figures up. She should go back to basic arithmetic from time to time. Its research is supposed to be embargoed until tomorrow, but everyone seems to have a copy, including the Daily Mail, and it is on the website. It cannot even get the embargo date right. The research is like a comic opera. Some of the figures do not add up. She just tosses in the odd £6 billion, which is the revenue taken by taxation. Others will make their judgments on that.
	New clause 1 seeks to require each lottery distributing body to make an annual report to the Secretary of State on the way in which it makes funding decisions during the year. Although it does not seek to compel distributing bodies to include any particular item, it is clearly expected that they would report on the way in which their decisions were made independent of Government and how, indeed, they have followed the principle of additionality. Where appropriate, they would report on the proportion of funds given to the voluntary and community sector. As I said, they would do so where appropriate, and I assume that the new clause is referring to the undertaking by the Big Lottery Fund that 60 to 70 per cent. of funding will go to voluntary and community sector organisations. The fund will produce an annual report on the way in which the principle of additionality has been followed, and the hon. Member for Bath welcomed that provision.
	The Government nevertheless agree with much of what lies behind new clause 1. We agree that the lottery funding decision should be made by distributing bodies independent of Government, although within an overall framework of high-level Government control through policy directions—I do not think that there is any disagreement about that. That is the proposition that we have submitted to the public in our consultation, to which I referred a little earlier, on the future of lottery funding for the good causes of the arts, film, heritage and sport. May I reiterate that we agree with the principle of additionality? We continue to follow the principle that lottery funding should not be allowed to become a substitute for funding that would usually fall to mainstream Government expenditure. When discussing additionality, it is important to clarify the nature of the Government expenditure that we are talking about. Some people call it core Government expenditure, others mainstream Government expenditure, but there is a great deal of Government expenditure, which I shall come on to, that falls outside such expenditure.
	That does not mean that the lottery cannot support things that receive strong public support or that lottery grants cannot add to public expenditure. That, too, is the proposition that we are putting to the public in our consultation. As I have noted, the Big Lottery Fund has agreed to produce an annual report to show how the principle has been adhered to. All distributing bodies already produce an annual report, which is placed in the Libraries of both Houses. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bath for drafting his provision in a way that tries to take account of some of my comments in Committee. In particular, we should not attempt to define additionality, as that would leave every funding decision open to legal challenge, thus preventing many good causes and projects from being funded in future. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his helpful approach, and I am sympathetic to the notion that the other distributing bodies may follow the lead of the Big Lottery Fund and explain how their grants have been made and, indeed, how they have met the principle of additionality.
	This morning, I discussed the issue with the chief executives of the distributors who, by chance, had a meeting at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. In his new clause, the hon. Member for Bath has tried to reflect our debate and discussions, including sentiments expressed in Committee. Indeed, his provision builds on the fact that Stephen Dunmore, the chief executive of the Big Lottery Fund, told the voluntary sector that in his annual report he would report on additionality and the spend of 60 to 70 per cent. I wish to make it clear that the Big Lottery Fund has made a commitment to report on such matters in its annual report, but this morning, the other lottery distributors agreed that they would each determine a policy on additionality and make it publicly available, probably through the annual report. However, they will develop other ways of making that policy available. That goes a long way towards satisfying the demands, which I think are genuine, for the executives of the lottery distributors to be held to account in a way that does not finish up as a lawyers' paradise. If that can be included in the annual report of the distributors and placed in the Library of both Houses, that will allow Members the opportunity for further debate through Select Committees or Adjournment debates or on the Floor of the House. That debate will be informed by the way in which lottery distributors have defined additionality and how they dispense the lottery money. Additionality in an area such as heritage may be defined differently from the way that it is defined by the Big Lottery Fund. It can be applied in a different way, although the objective is the same.
	I welcome the undertaking by the chief executives of the lottery distributors this morning to try to ensure through their annual reports that the Members of both Houses have that information and can use it for informed debates. However, we must be conscious of the need to avoid additional bureaucracy, which would go against the important principle in the Bill that more lottery money should go more quickly to good causes.
	I am sure that my parliamentary colleague the Under-Secretary of State for the Cabinet Office, not to mention the Prime Minister, would be less than pleased if I considered new clause 1 without acknowledging the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill. That was introduced earlier this month, supported by a number of stakeholders in the public and private sector. Members on the Opposition Front Benches would acknowledge that they have been at the forefront of the argument against red tape and additional bureaucracy. The Better Regulation Executive has made great efforts to tackle unnecessary or overcomplicated regulation and disproportionate bureaucratic requirements.

Mark Field: In that context, will the Minister answer the point that I made in my initial comments in relation to the Leonard Cheshire homes? Because the charity is a UK-wide body, it would have a single template and thus avoid multiple applications for Big Lottery Fund distribution, but the nature of the distribution and the other giving is such that there are many small, quite regionalised award-giving bodies, which makes it necessary for such a charity to duplicate its paperwork many times over for the various applications, instead of making a single UK-wide application. Is there any proposal to do away with such wasteful duplication?

Richard Caborn: If the hon. Gentleman writes to me, I will take the matter up with the Big Lottery Fund. We will do anything that we can to streamline applications. That is covered on the website. Measures that the Big Lottery Fund has put in place should make it more sensitive at national, regional and sub-regional level to organisations such as the one that the hon. Gentleman described.
	The undertaking by the Big Lottery Fund that 60 to 70 per cent. of its funding will go to voluntary and community sector organisations is a commitment by the Big Lottery Fund alone and is not applicable more widely. We shall have a full discussion of that undertaking when we come to amendment No. 4. For now, I say again that the undertaking has been given by the boards of the Community Fund and the New Opportunities Fund, operating as the Big Lottery Fund, and not by the Government. We fully support the undertaking, but we do not need to repeat it or write it into the Bill. I want to make it clear that it does not apply to other distributing bodies.
	We do not support new clause 1 in the form in which it has been tabled, for the reasons that I have given, but we will have the co-operation of the chief executives of the other distributors, which will probably take the same position as the Big Lottery Fund. It will be possible to debate additionality in the House in an informed way, against the background of the annual report.

Don Foster: First, before the Minister was intervened on by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field), he began a set of remarks about regulatory reform legislation. I could not see where he was going with those remarks, so perhaps he will explain precisely what he means. Secondly, he has said that the chief executives of the various distributors have assured him that they will produce a report, which he has told the House will enable hon. Members to debate the matter. Without a mechanism to place the report formally before the House, however, he is not going very far in meeting the issues raised by new clause 1.

Richard Caborn: The hon. Gentleman has been a Member of Parliament for many years, and he knows that Ministers do not organise the House's time from the Dispatch Box. The information on additionality that the hon. Gentleman wants will be available in the annual reports of the distributors, which will be placed in both Houses of Parliament. Those reports can be used to inform a debate, whenever hon. Members want to hold it.
	The hon. Gentleman should make a commitment from his Front Bench that the Liberal party will give up one Supply day—half a Supply day will do—every year to debate additionality. If he were to make such a commitment, it would advance new clause 1. He should give up a Supply day to debate the information that the chief executives of the various distributing bodies will put in their annual reports. I wonder whether he wants me to give way so that he can say yes to that proposal.

Don Foster: I am not rising to give the Minister the assurance that he seeks. From the Dispatch Box, he has told us that additionality is so important that he interrupted a meeting in his Department today to discuss new clause 1. However, he expects Opposition parties to give up their limited time on the Floor of the House to debate it, when it is the Government's responsibility. It should be debated in Government time, not Opposition time.

Richard Caborn: People reading Hansard will make their own judgment. The Liberal party tabled new clause 1, and I have delivered all the information required from the Dispatch Box. The information will be there for Parliament to debate, but the hon. Gentleman will not make a commitment from the Front Bench to give up a Supply day to use that information to inform the nation. I think that the nation will make a judgment on how he can be so hypocritical.
	New clause 2 seeks to define additionality by reference to what Governments do not usually fund and to hold both distributing bodies and the Secretary of State to such a definition. The Government entirely reject new clause 2 for reasons that I explained at some length in Committee. Strictly speaking, additionality is a matter between the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Treasury. If my Department were ever to seek to replace its funding with lottery funding, the Treasury would rightly reduce our funding by the same amount. Additionality will never be constant, so we cannot define what Governments usually provide. The Government provide money—[Interruption.] I wish that the hon. Member for Bath would listen—he has tabled new clause 1 but he is not even listening to what I am saying. I am trying to explain to him and to the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster why we reject new clause 2.
	The Government provide money to some charities, which is not core Government spending. Does that mean that the lottery should not give more to charities? The Government provide money to arts, sports and heritage in many areas—that is not core, or mainstream, Government spending. Does that mean that lottery funding cannot be used as well? We can follow the principle of additionality, but if we try to define it, or what the Government should "usually" fund, we will be restricted in some way from funding genuine good cause projects in the future. We cannot predict what those projects will be, but it is likely that those who will be most upset when we do not continue to fund them are those calling on us to set a definition.
	It might help if I highlight some examples of good projects that have been funded from just one lottery programme—"New Opportunities for PE and Sport"—in the constituencies of hon. Members who tabled the new clause. In the constituency of the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster, Westminster city council awarded almost £80,000 for improvements to the sports hall at Millbank primary school. Does he want us to withdraw that money because it is part of mainstream Government funding?
	In the constituency of the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), Cambridgeshire county council received more than £1.1 million for sporting facilities to provide young people and the community generally with high-quality tennis courts, a floodlit multi-use games area and a wide range of after-school sports activities. Should we withdraw those areas of funding because they are additional to Government spending?

Charles Walker: I hope that the Minister has some good news for Broxbourne on his list, because I recall that in Committee I was sometimes disappointed when he managed to gloss over my beautiful constituency.

Richard Caborn: Unfortunately, I do not have an example, but I will find one. I will refer to the hon. Gentleman's constituency before the end of the debate. I am looking to my officials to ensure that they dig out all the stats.
	As the hon. Member for Bath noted, there is a difference of opinion between Conservative Front Benchers. At the last election, the Conservatives proposed a scheme called Club2School, whereby every child would have the right to two hours of free after-school sports coaching. There is nothing wrong with that—we completely agree with it—but where was the £750 million with which they proposed to pay for it going to come from? The new Leader of the Opposition has told us that it would come out of the lottery.
	As the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) has just returned to his seat, let me tell him that he was wrong on two counts: the Bill winds up the Millennium Commission, and the residue of the money will go towards the development of the Olympics. The money was not spent in 2000, because it is still there. The final decision will be taken by the board.
	To sum up, we support the independence of lottery distributing bodies and the principle of additionality. All distributors are aware of the need to follow that principle. They have responded positively and practically to the demands that were made in Committee. I hope that, given that explanation and the positive moves made by the chief executives of the funding bodies, new clause 1 will be withdrawn.

Don Foster: I begin by thanking the Minister for his conduct of the debate on the important subject of additionality. I also thank him for the praise that he heaped on me—for my helpfulness and consideration and the way in which I took account of all the discussions in Committee and other places. I thank him, too, for the meeting that he held today with the chief executives of the lottery distributors.
	However, on 14 June last year on the Floor of the House, the Minister—nobody else—said that
	"additionality was an important principle that should be embodied in future legislation."—[Official Report, 14 June 2005; Vol. 435, c.168.]
	He did not say that we should get assurances from all sorts of people outside and include nothing about it in the measure. I welcome the fact that he has got those assurances—that constitutes huge progress—but I believe that what he said in June last year was right. We need the principle to be embodied in the legislation.

Richard Caborn: Not to put too fine a point on it, every lottery distributor has to report to the House, through a report to both Houses of Parliament which is placed in the Library. A report on additionality by each lottery distributor will appear in the annual report, which is put in the Library. The report has to be produced by statute.

Don Foster: The Minister still refuses to accept that we need the principle to be on the face of the Bill, but we have experienced problems with previous lottery Bills. In discussions on them, hon. Members referred to concern about additionality. Prime Ministers and Leaders of the Opposition assured us that they would not raid lottery funds, yet they did so. It is therefore crucial to include the principle on the face of the Bill.
	We have made enormous progress towards what I want to achieve. However, the Minister said that additionality issues "may" be reported in the annual report, not that they would be. More important, he has not acceded to his desire to include something about the matter on the face of the Bill.
	It is therefore with deep regret, given our progress, that I press new clause 1 to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
	The House divided: Ayes 179, Noes 271.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 3
	 — 
	Duty to consider ease of applications for money

'After section 25(2A) of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 (c. 39) (application of money by distributing bodies) insert—
	"(2AA)   A body which solicits applications from other bodies or persons under subsection (2A) shall have regard to the ease with which other bodies or persons can apply for any of the money which the body distributes."'.—[Mr. Foster.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Don Foster: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 13, in clause 11, page 7, leave out lines 4 and 5 and insert—
	'(c)   promotion of the benefits of the distribution of money under this Act.'.

Don Foster: New clause 3 deals with the important issue of the ease of applying for lottery grants. Many Members are well aware that in the early days of the national lottery, applying for a grant from any of the then distributors was quite a cumbersome affair. Things have become much better since then, year on year, but the purpose of the new clause is to insert in the Bill a mechanism to ensure that ease of application remains at the forefront of the thinking of all distributors.
	I said that the arrangements had been problematic in the past. Only two or three years ago, Sport England had to employ highly paid consultants to help people fill in forms that had been drawn up by Sport England itself. Not only did sports clubs express concern, but David McNeil of the Arts Council, reflecting on the early days, said that the difficulty in applying for grants
	"tended to benefit established organisations and those who had access to professional help and contacts."
	As I said, things have improved. In the days when Lord Smith of Finsbury was Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, he made it almost a requirement for all lottery distributors and those responsible for creating the forms to attend a presentation by the Plain English Campaign. That clearly was helpful. There are other tangible examples of progress. For example, the Heritage Lottery Fund has undoubtedly simplified its procedures and speeded up the way in which lottery money reaches projects, especially small grants to bodies that do not have easy access to professional help in filling in the forms. It is worth quoting figures showing how much progress has been made. Of those people who applied for grants in 2002–03, 71 per cent. felt that the amount of documentation required was "about right". That was a significant improvement on the previous year, when only 56 per cent. of grantees supported that statement.
	Since then, there has been further progress. That has been particularly the case since the Government's review of lottery funding, which I welcomed and that was published in January 2003. We should all place on the record our praise to the relevant Ministers and their staff for their work on that. The report acknowledged that progress was made, but went on to say that more needed to be done. It said:
	"Some respondents felt that it could still be difficult to apply for funding, especially for smaller organisations, but thought that it had become easier over the years since the Lottery began."
	As I say, progress has continued to be made since that time. However, it is worth reflecting on how problematic it can still be. I could choose many examples, but shall give just one. The chairman of the Aln Valley Railway Society, Mr. Stuart Manley, pointed out that it had to spend £100,000 on putting together its bid for funding from one of the lottery distributors. It got £6 million as a result of the success of that investment of £100,000, but that was a huge amount.
	We should praise the distributors, who are making progress. I welcome that and recognise that they acknowledge that more work still needs to be done. The HLF is consulting on its strategic plan, which will run from 2008. Included in that consultation is the issue of simplification and accessibility. The Big Lottery Fund has said that it has made enormous progress, but intends to continue to make progress. During the passage of the Bill in Committee, the Minister talked about the way in which the Big Lottery Fund will become a one-stop shop, or, as some people want to call it, one front door, for all lottery applications. I think that that will be an enormous help.
	I am delighted that there has been support for the new clause from a number of organisations, including the Central Council of Physical Recreation, all of which have acknowledged that, while progress has been made, there is a need for more to be done. Therefore, new clause 3 requires that the issue of accessibility, of ease of application, be placed in the Bill so that we continue to be reminded of its importance.
	Amendment No. 13 raises a different issue: whether it is right for lottery distributors to be promoting the playing of the national lottery. I said in Committee that it was right that the lottery distributors should promote the work that is done with the money that they distribute. They should be engaging in debate with the public about how that money should be spent. During the Committee stage, I tabled an amendment that basically had a similar effect, but in a different way. At the end of the consideration of the amendment I said:
	"Perhaps in the interim"—
	that is, between Committee and Report stages, although I did not anticipate that the interim would be so long—
	"the Minister will reflect on the words he has used to see if he can bring himself to say, 'National lottery distributors shall not be allowed to promote the playing of the national lottery and national lottery games.' If the Minister persuaded himself to say that now, it would be even easier. Since he is not prepared to do that, and with a clear hope that we shall return to the matter if the words do not satisfy me, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment."
	I gave the Minister a chance to say those words then—today, I am giving him another chance to make it absolutely clear that the lottery distributors will not be able to promote the playing of the national lottery or national lottery games.
	The Minister went halfway when he told me:
	"Distributors are not in the business of promoting national lottery games . . . that is Camelot's responsibility under the terms of its licence."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 1 November 2005; c. 174, 171.]
	I know that it is not the distributors' business to be doing that, but I am anxious to ensure that they do not actually do it. Greater clarity is needed.
	I also want to put on the record how important it is for the distributors to promote the uses to which they put the moneys that they distribute. There is huge confusion in the mind of the public about the various projects. I referred in Committee to the ICM poll that found that people believed that the same amount of money went to help asylum seekers as to supporting disabled people—although the ratio is really 10:1 in favour of disabled people. I make no comment on whether that is right or wrong; I am merely pointing out that there is a huge misconception in the mind of the public.
	That is not helped by some newspaper stories about applications being turned down for politically correct reasons, which often turn out to be a load of nonsense. For example, in October The Times ran an article about the Severn Area Rescue Association's application being turned down because it could not provide details of the social background of the people whom it rescued. That turned out to be totally untrue. The Times published the story on 18 October and had to correct it on 27 October.
	The worry is that the problem continues to this day. Only today, in the Daily Mail, we are told yet again that St. Paul's Cathedral was turned down for funding because it did not appeal to a diverse audience. Again, that story is not true. The Daily Mail says:
	"the heritage fund has forced St. Paul's Cathedral to withdraw an application for £8.9 million for restoration work because it allegedly fails to appeal to a 'wider audience' among minority groups."
	I talked today to the people from the HLF and they assured me categorically that that story is untrue. St. Paul's voluntarily withdrew its application, which largely related to cleaning the outside of the building. It is worth reading out exactly what the HLF said in its briefing to me today, to put it clearly on the record:
	"It's not true that the application was rejected because it didn't have wide enough appeal—clearly not the case at such a popular attraction and important cathedral. HLF has funded more than 2,000 places of worship and is committed to supporting this important expression of our heritage".
	Indeed, I understand that discussions are ongoing between St. Paul's and the HLF about possible future funding.
	It is important that the lottery distributors should engage with the public about the way in which money is used. I welcome the "Restoration" and "The People's Millions" programmes, and many other examples, but I worry about distributors promoting the playing of the lottery itself. The reason for that is simple. The best way to give money to a charity or other good cause is not by playing the national lottery. If someone plays the national lottery and spends £1 on their ticket, only 28p goes to the good cause, but if someone gives £1 directly to a good cause, using the benefit of Gift Aid, £1.28 goes to the good cause. If we want to give money to a charity, it is much more efficient to give it directly, preferably using Gift Aid, than through the national lottery. However, people play the national lottery not just to give money to good causes, but to have a chance of winning one of the prizes. That is understandable and I make no criticism of that, but that does not mean that playing the lottery is the best way of giving money to a charity.
	We must ensure that lottery distributors do not promote playing the lottery or lottery games, but I am very keen for them to promote the activities that they engage in, using the money that they have raised. That is the purpose of amendment No. 13.

Richard Caborn: As drafted, new clause 3 would require a distributing body to have regard to the ease of application for its grants if it solicits applications for grants. However, I wonder whether the intention behind the new clause was the more general one of requiring distributing bodies to have constant regard to the ease of applications, whether or not they have been sought. I agree with the sentiments behind the new clause, which was tabled jointly by the hon. Members for Bath (Mr. Foster) and for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson). It is very important that it be made easier for people to access lottery funding; indeed, that is one of the Bill's aims. As the hon. Member for Bath said, we have made steady progress in that regard and, hopefully, we will continue to do so. As I said to the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) earlier, that is what we want to achieve.
	We are encouraging all lottery distributing bodies to make their application processes easier, and that is already happening. Where we need to legislate, we have already done so. Clause 14 inserts a new section 36D into the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 that will enable the Big Lottery Fund to give wider lottery advice, particularly on the inviting, making or considering of applications for grants. That will, in turn, enable the BLF to develop common application forms, and to take a lead on the sharing of best practice and on the developing of pre-application support and common standards of service.
	A good example of the sort of thing that new section 36D will enable is the lottery funding website, which will be launched soon. It will provide a single front door and give up-to-date detailed advice and guidance on how and where to apply for lottery grants. That will be particularly helpful to organisations and people who find it difficult to apply for lottery funding under the current system. One such example is village halls, as the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor) pointed out in an Adjournment debate last October. However, we see no case for introducing a specific requirement in that regard. As I said earlier, we are keen to reduce bureaucratic and administrative burdens, not to add to them. We see no reason to link such a requirement specifically to the soliciting of applications.
	We gave lottery distributing bodies the power to solicit applications back in 1998, and doing so has proved very successful indeed. Before 1998, distributing bodies had to wait for an application to arrive, often from the great and good. That change has had a considerable impact. The lottery forum, which represents lottery distributing bodies, told us that introducing the enabling power to solicit applications was key to widening access to the lottery; it enabled distributing bodies actively to seek applications from certain communities. We do not want distributing bodies to be restricted in any way in their ability to solicit applications.
	Amendment No. 13 takes us back to a debate in Committee. I appreciate that in tabling it, the hon. Members for Bath and for East Dunbartonshire were to some extent prompted by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations. They are concerned that, as drafted, clause 11 will encourage people to play the lottery and to regard it as a good way to give money to charity. As I tried to explain in Committee, it will do no such thing. Promotion of the lottery games is entirely a matter for Camelot, the lottery licence holder. Clause 11 will remove the doubt that exists in some minds about whether the lottery distributing bodies have the proper powers to publicise the national lottery beyond the grants that they award and the purpose behind them. It will allow them to publish more general information about the work of all lottery distributing bodies, so that the public can be better informed about where the money was awarded.
	I agree with what the hon. Member for Bath said so succinctly in respect of today's national newspaper reports about the Heritage Lottery Fund and St. Paul's. The reports are unacceptable, and the newspapers involved should read Hansard and make amends by clarifying what actually happened. However, that case underlines why we believe that it is necessary for the lottery to promote the good causes that it supports.

Mark Field: May I say that I agree with the Minister? St. Paul's is in my constituency and I have had dealings with people there. I have also worked with people at St. Martin in the Fields, which in recent years received a very large grant. There were parallels between those cases, but it was accepted that St. Paul's would need to reassess its application.
	The Minister has described the process of giving information, but will he confirm that it will involve more than simply rubbishing press reports? The process should not be merely reactive—information should be made available regularly and proactively, to ensure that the spirit of new clause 3 and amendment No. 13 is retained.

Richard Caborn: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's sentiments, but I emphasise that we do not believe that it will be enough to restrict the power to the sole benefit of the distributing bodies. Our definition is wide because there is such a wide range of publicity activities for those bodies to get involved in. Public awareness of the lottery can take many forms and we would not want to limit how the distributing bodies can convey awareness of what the lottery has funded.
	The distributing bodies must be able to tell all the good news stories about the good causes and about how people are benefiting from lottery funding. To that end, we want to ensure that they can participate fully in the work of the national lottery promotions unit, which seeks to raise positive awareness of, and support for, the benefits of national lottery good cause funding across the whole country.
	Specific examples of that wider promotion are the hugely successful national lottery day and the national lottery awards. Those innovations are designed to raise public awareness of how lottery money is used for good causes, and both are held under the auspices of the national lottery promotions unit. We want to ensure that they and other promotions of the lottery good causes can continue, and retain the full engagement of the distributing bodies.
	I realise that some unintentional confusion was generated in Standing Committee when the hon. Member for Bath picked up a typographical error in the explanatory notes. I have served on many Committees with him and know that he always goes through such notes very carefully. With his eagle eye, he spotted that the notes said that the process would contribute to the "brand" health of the lottery. They should have said that the process will contribute to the "broad" health of the lottery, and that is what will appear in the revised version that I hope will come out tomorrow.
	At the time, I did not recognise the significance of what the hon. Member for Bath was saying. I hope that he will accept my apologies and assurances in respect of this matter.
	To sum up, new clause 3 is intended to be helpful, but it would put another bureaucratic obstacle in the way of getting lottery money more quickly to good causes. I am sure that the House would not want that to happen. Amendment No. 13 is similarly well intentioned, but it would place unreasonable restrictions on the ability of distributing bodies to be fully involved in work to promote the lottery good causes and would therefore undermine the good work of the national lottery promotions unit. The fact that the lottery can be undermined by inaccurate reporting shows that lottery promoters need the powers in the Bill so that they can give a positive and proactive account of what is happening with the good causes, and in that way retain public support. I therefore hope that new clause 3 and amendment No. 13 be withdrawn.

Don Foster: I shall begin as I began when I summed up the last debate, namely, by thanking the Minister. He has been extraordinarily generous in his remarks to me and to my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) on the new clause that we tabled. I am also grateful for his kind comments about the diligence with which I study explanatory notes. I hope that he noticed that I did not even refer to that episode in my opening remarks, having decided to reserve mention until this point, had the Minister failed to mention it. However, he has admitted that he made an error and confirmed that it will be changed, and I welcome that, as I welcome the spirit of his remarks.
	In relation to new clause 3, I understand, just about, the Minister's point about it adding bureaucracy to the system, but the example he gave suggested that by making it easier to fill in an application form, it would somehow lengthen the time it takes for someone to access the funds. I have difficulty in coming to terms with that, but perhaps in a subsequent private conversation he will explain to me how that could be the case.
	I am grateful to the Minister for confirming what I said earlier about the St. Paul's issue and he is 100 per cent. right to say that the newspaper concerned owes its readers and all the bodies concerned an early correction of the error. I acknowledge what he said about the need to ensure that lottery distributors do not promote the playing of the lottery and lottery games, but it is important that they should promote the good causes. I genuinely believe that the lottery distributors are doing that already and they are doing a good job.
	I hear from Sir Clive Booth, the excellent chairman of the Big Lottery Fund, that every time I mention his name and call him excellent, one of his relatives goes—well, the expression he used is one that I probably should not use in the Chamber. Let us say that his relative is delighted when I make the connection between Sir Clive and excellence. In any case, I very much welcome the good work that the BLF and other distributors are doing.
	Given the assurances that the Minister has given, it would be sensible to acknowledge that the work that I want to happen will happen and I shall therefore not press the issue to a vote. I welcome the Minister's assurances and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4
	 — 
	Length of licence

Richard Caborn: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 4, line 1, after 'may', insert
	'(subject to the restriction in subsection (1A)(b))'.
	This amendment refers to the provision in clause 4 of the Bill to allow the National Lottery Commission to include provision in the licences it issues under sections 5 and 6 of the National Lottery Act 1993 to grant an extension of such a licence. It is our intention that any such extension is subject to the maximum total licence length of 15 years imposed by new section 7(1A)(b) inserted by clause 4. Although we consider that clause 4, as originally worded, would achieve that end, it became clear in Committee that the issue of the impact of an extension was subject to doubt. The amendment will therefore provide unambiguous clarification that the maximum length of a licence would be 15 years, inclusive of any extension. I hope that that clears up some of the misunderstanding that we had in Committee.

Mark Field: I must confess that, not having served on the Standing Committee, it seems somewhat superfluous to refer to what happened 15 years ago. I am sure that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) and the other hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee will tell me otherwise, but I am sure that this is an entirely uncontroversial Government amendment. Perhaps I speak for myself on that matter, and perhaps we shall hear a longer speech from the hon. Gentleman before too long. The Government amendment obviously seems sensible. Their draftsmen no doubt have in mind a belt-and-braces approach. I do not think any great concern has been raised, and I therefore hope that we shall move swiftly on to the next group of amendments.

Don Foster: I had not intended to speak, but perhaps I can give the Minister an opportunity to reflect on the words uttered by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field). He said that the Government amendment is not controversial. It is not controversial in the sense that it merely confirms what most hon. Members knew was the Government's intention, but it is controversial in the sense that many people argue that a different licence length should be given to the lottery. Some people argue that the licence should last a short period, while others argue that it should last a long time.
	Given that we are about to enter into a new phase of deliberation about who will provide the lottery in future, it is crucial that the Government are clear about issue, because it has a huge impact on who will bid to run the lottery and on the terms and conditions under which people would expect to run it. It is vital to make such matters clear, although, as I said in Committee, I believe that the Government have got the balance between the arguments about very short and very long time scales 100 per cent. right. Indeed, they have included the flexibility to extend the fixed period. So it is important to make that vital issue clear.

Richard Caborn: It is absolutely right that this is one of the tools that we will use to maximise the lottery, by setting the conditions for those who will negotiate. I am sure that we will not finish up, as we did last time with the new licence, in something of a mess, which created a few problems. We have looked at that carefully and reflected on it, and as the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) says, we have just about got it right, so that we can maximise the marketplace. I am pretty sure that we will attract a good number of bidders, thus serving the health of the lottery.

Don Foster: The Minister says that he is optimistic that there will be a large number of bids. Since the proceedings in Committee finished, a lot of work has been going on to talk to various people. Perhaps the Minister can briefly bring the House up to date on how successfully that issue has been handled.

Richard Caborn: I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about that, because I do not know exactly how many people are involved. I have not been briefed about that in recent weeks, so I would not want to say at the Dispatch Box something that is wrong. However, I will write to him and place a copy of the letter in the Library.
	Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7
	 — 
	Distribution of lottery funds

Mark Field: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 5, line 14, leave out 'prescribed'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
	No. 4, in page 5, line 19, at end insert—
	'(2A)   After subsection (3) insert—
	"(3A)   Not less than 70 per cent. of the sum allocated under subsection (3) (d) shall be allocated to bodies (other than public bodies or local authorities) whose activities are carried on not for profit.".'.
	No. 3, in page 5, line 20, leave out subsection (3).
	No. 5, in page 5, line 38, at end insert—
	'(da)   persons that the Secretary of State considers to be representative of bodies (other than public or local authorities) whose activities are not carried on for profit,'.
	No. 11, in clause 14, page 9, line 13, leave out 'comply with' and insert 'take account of'.
	No. 10, in page 13, line 2, leave out clause 19.

Mark Field: [Interruption.] And people say that there is no bugging in the House.
	May I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for his earlier kind words about my new Front-Bench role? We have a number of things in common. We are both keen football fans—a rarity, perhaps, among Opposition Members, but less so among Labour Members. The Minister might not recall that I first met him some years before I was elected to the House at the erstwhile ground of Reading football club—my home town—at Elm Park. Unfortunately, Reading have remained a thorn in the side of Sheffield United, and I suspect that they will remain so for much of this season, as they both try to get into the premiership next year. Good luck to the Blades and good luck obviously to the Royals as well.
	The Minister and I also have another thing in common: we share a birthday. It may be obvious that he is a few years older than me. Suffice it to say that he came of age on the day that I was born, and of course coming of age in 1964—the year that I was born—was a somewhat different proposition to what it may be today. There is one other Member of the House with whom we share a birthday, although he does not attend regularly: the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams). Suffice it to say that if I grow a beard, we will be almost indistinguishable as a trio of people born on 6 October. However, enough of this frivolity, Mr. Deputy Speaker, let me turn to amendments Nos. 2 and 3.
	A major theme of the Bill is the way in which the Secretary of State is taking more power over lottery expenditure than she has at present. Worry about that was expressed on Second Reading and in Committee, and it is one of the reasons why we have tabled the amendments. Section 22 of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 sets out the division of funds among good clauses. Clause 7(2)(b) of the Bill will merge the charitable, health, education and environmental pots for the purposes of creating the Big Lottery Fund. However, that sum is allocated for "prescribed expenditure", rather than expenditure that falls simply within the specific categories set out in section 22 of the 1993 Act. The expenditure is, of course, prescribed by the Secretary of State by order.
	Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 would remove the Secretary of State's ability to prescribe expenditure in such a way. The Big Lottery Fund should be able to spend on any matter that its objects allow, rather than be limited to the pet projects of any Secretary of State. We have in mind a situation in which there is discretion in the hands of the distributor, instead of a mandatory stick of compliance that is wielded by the Secretary of State.
	The Bill sets out clearly and transparently the purposes of Big Lottery Fund expenditure, but we do not think that that should be narrowed down by the Secretary of State's orders. We will run the risk of that happening unless the amendments are accepted. While the Secretary of State has powers over spending due to sections 25 and 26 of the 1993 Act, the prescribed expenditure is a new and further way of directing funds. We find the proposal objectionable and think that we need some means of overturning it. In summary, amendments Nos. 2 and 3 would put the Big Lottery Fund in the same position as other distributing bodies and remove the prospect of the Secretary of State being able to override it. We may return to that matter later in the debate.
	Amendment No. 4 would apply to charitable and voluntary groups that are not charities. It would put in the Bill the assurance that the Minister gave on Second Reading that some 60 to 70 per cent. of Big Lottery Fund expenditure would go to voluntary or community groups. We decided that as the Minister is a generous man and he intended to provide reassurance to those groups, we would pitch for the higher figure of 70 per cent. in amendment No. 4.
	On Second Reading, the Minister said:
	"I acknowledge that some have said that a Big Lottery Fund could lead to voluntary and community sector organisations losing out. I can give a categorical assurance that that will not happen . . . The Big Lottery Fund has given a clear undertaking that 60 to 70 per cent. of its funding will go directly to the sector."—[Official Report, 14 June 2005; Vol. 435, c. 170.]
	It was thus somewhat disappointing that the Minister resisted such an amendment in Committee, when he said:
	"As that undertaking has been given by the boards of the Community Fund and the New Opportunity Fund, not the Government, it would not be appropriate to enshrine it in the Bill"
	and
	"It is not for the Government to decide whether it is 60 or 70 per cent.; it is a decision for the Big Lottery Fund."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 25 October 2005; c. 40.]
	As I pointed out when I spoke to amendments Nos. 2 and 3, we want to ensure that the Big Lottery Fund has proper discretion. Given the assurances that were made on Second Reading, I hope that the Minister will accept amendment No. 4.
	Indeed, on Second Reading, the Minister said:
	"I give a guarantee that between 60 and 70 per cent. of the Big Lottery Fund's income will go to communities or charities."
	In case there was any mistake, his ministerial colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell), said in the same debate:
	"We guarantee that between 60 and 70 per cent. of Big Lottery Fund grants will go to the voluntary sector"—[Official Report, 14 June 2005; Vol. 435, c. 175, 218.]
	A Government guarantee was given to the House on Second Reading. Both Ministers who spoke in the debate made it clear that the matter was for the Government to decide, which is why amendment No. 4 should be accepted.
	Amendment No. 5 is designed to add to the persons—bodies representing the voluntary sector—who need to be consulted before the Secretary of State prescribes expenditure. It is based on proposals by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, which helped the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats to prepare for our discussion on Report. I shall also give it credit where credit is due at a later point. I understand that the hon. Members for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) and for Bath (Mr. Foster) put their names to the amendment in Committee.
	Whether particular voluntary organisations or their projects will be able to obtain grants from the Big Lottery Fund will depend on whether their activities are within the expenditure prescribed by the Secretary of State. She should therefore identify representative bodies and ensure that she consults them before making such important decisions.
	There has been concern about consultation on lottery issues. The NCVO concludes:
	"the Department for Culture, Media and Sport . . . and its affiliates have frequently ignored or overlooked"
	a range of bodies that perhaps should have been consulted. I appreciate that the charitable and voluntary sector in particular is in a constant state of flux, with bodies starting up, closing down or amalgamating at any one time. It will be difficult to keep a rigorous list of those groups that should be consulted, but concern has been reiterated by a number of bodies about whether there has been sufficient consultation. On that basis, I hope that considerable thought will be given to what we are trying to do to ensure that a proper and comprehensive consultation process takes place.
	We want agreement on the consultation between the DCMS and the voluntary and community sectors. The NCVO gave a specific example. It felt that there was
	"A series of failures over an 18 month period by the DCMS to consult with the voluntary sector in a meaningful or clear way in regards to the proposed merger of the Community Fund and NOF."
	On multiple occasions during that period there were also breaches of its consultation code. Many of us, as constituency Members, will have anecdotal evidence of that. Many of my residents and local groups are concerned about another aspect of the DCMS—the royal parks. They think that they should be consulted from time to time and feel outside the consultation loop. As I said, I appreciate that rigorous consultation is difficult when a large number of groups is set up and amalgamated, but it should be given proper consideration.
	I again thank the NCVO for its assistance in helping us to propose amendment No. 11.
	Clause 14 covers the functions of the Big Lottery Fund, including the power to distribute funds and to give advice, and the policy and financial direction of the fund. The amendment would ensure that the statutory framework for the new distributor more accurately reflected the statutory framework of the former distributors. The Community Fund was required only to take account of such policy directions while the New Opportunities Fund was required to comply. Since its creation in 1993, the Community Fund has been required to take account of matters concerning grant making and the conditions under which the money is distributed by the Secretary of State. That should continue with the amalgamation of the funds into the Big Lottery Fund. We are suggesting that we have continuity in the manner in which the issues are debated.
	There was concern among voluntary and community sector organisations at the time of the merger that the new distributor would more closely resemble the New Opportunities Fund than the Community Fund, representing a significant increase in Government control of funding for the charitable good cause. In Committee, the Minister said:
	"We are combining NOF with the Community Fund and the Millennium Commission in the Big Lottery Fund, and we are taking no more powers than already exist under NOF."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 27 October 2005; c. 112.]
	In oral questions as recently as 24 October last year and elsewhere, assurances were given that the Big Lottery Fund would not be subject to any greater powers of direction than its former distributors. It now transpires, however, that that means no greater powers of direction than were given to the New Opportunities Fund. Had that been mooted at the time of the merger, it would probably not have received such overwhelming backing from the voluntary and community sector, and certainly not from the NCVO.
	In its submission to DCMS in June 2003, the NCVO stated:
	"The Secretary of State currently has the power to specify the initiatives to which NOF will give effect (i.e. the programmes which it is required to run) . . . To strengthen the independence of the new body and the additionality of its funding"—
	I will not reopen our earlier debates on that subject, but the submission refers to the additionality of funding "both actual and perceived". Perception is important, as we discussed in relation to the last amendment. The submission said that, to strengthen the independence of the new body and the additionality of its funding
	"there should be no comparable powers in the legislation setting up the new body."
	Concerns about the New Opportunities Fund will multiply unless we use the words "take account of" instead of "comply with".
	I hope that the Minister accepts that perception is important. The lowest common denominator—perhaps, from the Government's point of view, it is the highest common factor—means that there will be more Government control, which is not healthy. The NCVO submission to DCMS in June 2003 said:
	"NOF only has the scope to consult on the way in which initiatives will be administered, not on what those initiatives will be. This is in contrast to the Community Fund which has the freedom to set its own strategic direction, priorities and programmes, following consultation with stakeholders, including the Secretary of State, albeit within broad Policy Directions.
	The new body should be given the freedom and independence, in particular from government, to set its own strategic direction, priorities and programmes after consultation, within a broad framework set by the legislation and Policy Directions."
	The control afforded to the Secretary of State in clause 14 as currently drafted threatens to undermine the independence of the Big Lottery Fund. It is vital that lottery distributors remain free from Government interference but accountable to Parliament. Research shows that the public are strongly in favour of the national lottery, particularly if it remains independent of the Government. Some 73 per cent. of respondents to an ICM opinion poll commissioned only last year said that an independent public body should decide how lottery money is spent. In Committee, hon. Members were provided with illustrative policy directions, and the Minister gave us the assurance that the Government have no intention of using those powers to intervene in individual grant decisions. Nevertheless, the future independence of lottery distributors cannot be guaranteed if those powers remain in the Bill. I hope that the Minister will consider our arguments carefully, as they are at the heart of several of our amendments and we intend to divide the House if we do not receive a satisfactory response.
	Finally, with your consent, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not wish to press amendment No. 10. We have expressed concern that there is little reason to change the definition of charitable expenditure in section 44 of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993. There is certainly a good case for updating the guidance to ensure that it enables the new distributor to fund all the relevant organisations. However, my party takes seriously the work of organisations such as the Social Enterprise Coalition, whose representatives we have met on many occasions. The coalition's opinion is that the new definition proposed by clause 19 will give the lottery much greater scope for funding social enterprises that would otherwise fall short of the definition and be outside the scope of a lottery award. We appreciate that the issue should be subject to further consultation so that we get it right, and I hope that the Minister can initiate such consultation before the Bill goes to another place. On that basis, although we do not seek to press amendment No. 10, we trust that the other amendments that my colleagues and I have tabled will receive further consideration.

Jo Swinson: I take this opportunity to welcome the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) to his new role on the Front Bench. I am sure he will find it a very fulfilling one. He mentioned that he did not have the enjoyable experience of serving on the Standing Committee, which I certainly found interesting, but no doubt there are many future Committees for him to look forward to.
	As has been outlined, amendments Nos. 2 and 3 remove the prescriptive powers of the Secretary of State which would otherwise be introduced. We support that. The view has emerged through Second Reading, Committee and Report that it is much better to ensure that lottery distribution is kept as independent of the Government as possible. That view is supported by the public. A poll for the National Council for Voluntary Organisations found that 73 per cent. of people wanted lottery funds to be distributed by an independent body. As the Bill is drafted, the Big Lottery Fund is not such a body, as the Secretary of State has the power to prescribe to whom it gives money and what it does. We support amendments Nos. 2 and 3.
	Amendment No. 4 also revisits ground that was covered in earlier stages of the Bill regarding the percentage of the Big Lottery Fund's funding that will go towards communities and charities. On Second Reading, as has been mentioned, the Minister pointed out that that would be between 60 and 70 per cent., but in Committee he was unwilling for that figure to be written into the Bill, as called for by amendment No. 27, which both Opposition parties supported. We still believe it is important for that assurance to be enshrined in the Bill.
	In Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) argued that the Big Lottery Fund had come to the figure of 60 to 70 per cent., but without any assurances, there was no guarantee that it would not change its mind at some later date. After all, the members of the Big Lottery Fund would no doubt change, and Ministers have even been known to change. Writing the figure into the Bill would give communities and charitable organisations the assurance that they seek.
	The Minister's argument was that it would not be helpful to have that set in stone. We must remember that the original National Lottery etc. Act 1993 set in stone the percentages of good causes money that had to be distributed by each distributor. The National Lottery Act 1998 adjusted those figures, but set them in stone. The Horserace Betting and Olympic Lottery Act 2004 adjusted the figures again, and once more they were set in stone.
	The Bill itself proposes changes to the proportion of funding going to various bodies. The Act as amended will contain such specifics as the fact that 2.6 per cent. of the 16 per cent. of lottery money going to sport should go to the Sports Council for Northern Ireland, and that 1.16 per cent. of the 16 per cent. spent on arts should go to Scottish Screen, so I am a little confused about how the Minister can argue for all that prescription—all those powers to tell the Big Lottery Fund what it should be doing—and then say that it would be a problem to set in stone the percentage of the money that should go to voluntary organisations. That does not seem to fit. As we know, things change, and an assurance in the Bill would be a welcome guarantee for those involved.
	Amendment No. 5 deals with a related issue—involving the voluntary sector in consultation. As was mentioned in Committee, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is not usually judged to have a good record on consulting the voluntary sector. [Interruption.] It was mentioned in Committee on various occasions that there were concerns about how that was done. Including the new wording in the Bill would help to enshrine the best practice. If the Minister feels that the Department has a good record of which it can be proud, he will have no difficulty including those lines in the Bill to ensure best practice. If the Secretary of State is to have the power to prescribe expenditure that is likely to go to not-for-profit organisations, those organisations have a specific interest in the new power and should be consulted when it is used. That should be included in the Bill.
	Amendment No. 11, too, would restrict the powers of the Secretary of State. The current wording would force the Big Lottery Fund to comply with decisions by the Secretary of State, rather than taking account of them. I have no problem with the Secretary of State advising, giving counsel or putting points to the Big Lottery Fund. That is fair enough, but the power to make it comply is a step too far. In Committee, the Minister said:
	"I have already announced that we have adopted a light touch on the direction of the Big Lottery Fund."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 27 October 2005; c. 110.]
	In my view, a light touch involves cajoling, encouraging or putting forward points, not making an organisation comply. How would the Government respond if, for example, unwelcome stories appeared in the press? Would they encourage the Big Lottery Fund to change its awards? I think that an advisory role is much more appropriate, and many hon. Members on both sides of the House share that view.
	In a letter dated 1 November to Denis Vaughan, president of the Council for the Advancement of Arts, Recreation and Education, Sir John Major, who, as has been said many times in the course of this Bill, was the architect of the lottery, said:
	"It is scandalous how the Government have so emasculated the original purpose of the Lottery and I do take every suitable opportunity to raise this matter publicly. I shall continue to do so until the resources that were intended for the original good causes are returned to them."
	It is important to ensure that the lottery's independence is preserved, and the Secretary of State's powers should therefore be restricted.
	I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster withdraw amendment No. 10. We voted against clause 19 in Committee, but we understand its impact in allowing social enterprises to receive funding—social enterprises can often deliver projects effectively, and I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House support them. Clause 19 also raises some concerns about additionality, which we have already debated today. I hope that those concerns are addressed and that clause 19 is not used to put lottery funding into Government projects, which is not what the lottery was set up for.

Charles Walker: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson). One so young, but so brilliant; she is an example to us all.
	I want to focus on amendment No. 11, because the national lottery should be independent of Government interference. Whatever the Government of the day, the lottery should be free from the political whims and imperatives of the moment. For example—God forbid—the Big Lottery Fund could find itself being directed towards marginal seats in the run-up to a general election. I am sure that the Minister does not want that to happen, but there is no point in having power unless one uses it.
	The hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire has pointed out that 73 per cent. of people interviewed by ICM in 2004 wanted the lottery to remain independent of the Government, and their voices should be heard. The lottery should be free to decide who receives money. There will always be high profile worthy causes that attract the national lottery's attention and money, but we are a diverse country, so there will always be minority cases, too.
	In giving the national lottery the power to award grants, we must remember that mistakes will be made. Such mistakes might not go down well in the national media, and the tabloid press might make a stink; guinea pig farms was one such example cited in Committee. We hear a great deal about asylum seekers and single mothers, but I feel that we, as politicians, are too often led by the tabloid press. Metaphorically speaking, I sometimes think that we should give two fingers to the tabloids and focus on running the country and doing what we think is right, as opposed to chasing headlines and trying to appease people who make a big stink about issues of little importance. If we give the national lottery independence, it will sometimes make unpopular decisions, but that is a price worth paying, and as a politician, I would support it in making such decisions.
	Independence does not mean this thing called "The People's Millions", whereby the Big Lottery Fund will team up with ITV to have a sort of people's panel that will vote on which communities get what awards. Those awards will account for £50,000, and perhaps £5 million or £6 million will be given away each year. We are not too short a step away from moving on from that to ITV taking us to a geriatric ward and a children's ward, and asking voters to decide who gets the money—"Do the kids get to stay in hospital or do we throw the old people out on the street? You, the viewers, decide." That is pretty obscene. I have deep problems with the idea of a TV show deciding which communities get what money.
	As I have said before—I am getting a little repetitive—I do not believe that it should be up to the Minister to direct the Big Lottery Fund on where it should be spending money. That should be a matter entirely for its board. Amendment No. 11 would require the Big Lottery Fund to take account of the Minister's view but not to comply with it. That would be a step in the right direction.
	The Big Lottery Fund is in danger of being seen as a body of placemen. After all, the Secretary of State will appoint the chair and all the members and direct them. One could say, "Let's just get rid of the Big Lottery Fund and the charade of independence and put all the decisions in the hands of the Secretary of State and her colleagues."

Richard Caborn: Let me my preface my remarks by responding to the hon. Members for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker) and for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson). They should bear in mind that the Bill was drafted after very wide consultation. Out of that consultation came the broad themes that we should advance through the Big Lottery Fund; creating opportunities, and promoting community learning, safety, cohesion and well-being. That is the high-level direction that is given by Government to the Big Lottery Fund.
	We are talking about one of the most successful lotteries in the world. Over the past year or so, the take has gone up as more people have participated. It has been hugely successful in terms of the Olympics. Well over £4 million has already been banked, and we only won the Olympics on 6 July last year. The general public have responded to that.
	The hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire said that we have a bad record on consulting the voluntary sector. In fact, when we consulted it on the terms of reference, we were accused of consultation fatigue. The accusations swing from one extreme to the other. Nevertheless, we will continue to have these positive consultations. The proposal to include a statement about additionality in the annual report to Parliament was made by Stephen Dunmore, the chief executive of the Big Lottery Fund, in consultation with the voluntary sector. That was a significant move.
	This group of amendments is concerned with the Big Lottery Fund and what it will spend its money on. We discussed identical proposals in Committee at some length.I have set out clearly our reasons for resisting the amendments. No new evidence has been produced to support the amendments since our Committee proceedings, so my comments today will mirror what I said then.
	Amendment No. 2 would remove the Secretary of State's power to prescribe expenditure for the new Big Lottery Fund good cause. Amendment No. 3 would remove the related order-making power. Those amendments would mean that the Big Lottery Fund was given 50 per cent. of all the lottery good cause money to spend on anything that was charitable or connected with health, education or the environment, without further recourse to Parliament. That is simply not sensible. The new lottery good cause is both broad in scope and large in terms of the percentage of lottery money allocated to it. The other good causes of arts, sport and heritage are relatively narrowly prescribed areas.
	Within those relatively narrowly prescribed areas, existing legislation further prescribes sums to be distributed by different distributors, as has already been shown. That has the effect not only of limiting who can spend the money but restricting what it can be spent on. For example, prescribing the percentage to be distributed by the Film Council in effect prescribes the percentage of money from the arts good causes that must be spent on film. Parliament took the view in 1993 that such arrangements were necessary to ensure the effective distribution of lottery money. The powers in the Bill are not so different in effect, and it is our view that they are as necessary now as they were in 1993.
	Creating a large and responsive good cause was one of the main reasons why we wanted to bring the Community Fund and the New Opportunities Fund together. However, given the breadth of the new good cause, we need to be able to set out at the highest level the types of expenditure on which the Big Lottery Fund should focus. It is right that that should be done in a transparent and accountable way, and that there should be proper parliamentary scrutiny of the process. That is why we are clear that that should be done by secondary legislation and subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
	The order-making powers in clause 7 will allow us to prescribe the three high-level themes of community learning and creating opportunity; promoting community safety and cohesion; and promoting well-being. I explained in Committee that the Big Lottery Fund has consulted widely on the three themes. Some hon. Members unfortunately sought to belittle this consultation, saying that the 850 responses was hardly a representative sample. However, the respondents included 429 voluntary and community sector organisations, 178 local authorities, 43 health authorities or primary care trusts and 30 local education authorities or schools. Between them, those bodies represent millions of people.
	Fifty-eight per cent. of the respondents agreed that the themes provide a sensible and flexible strategic framework for future funding. Only 5 per cent. disagreed. The order-making powers also allow us to prescribe devolved expenditure, which will be the responsibility of new country committees, subject to directions issued by the relevant devolved Administrations.
	The Bill represents a significant devolution of power to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and the ability to prescribe devolved expenditure is central to achieving that. Without those powers, devolved arrangements in the Bill will not work. For the reasons I have given, we cannot accept amendments Nos. 2 and 3, and I ask the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster to withdraw them.
	Amendment No. 4 would require the Big Lottery Fund to allocate 70 per cent. of its funding to bodies other than public bodies or local authorities whose activities are carried out not for profit. I well know the desire for reassurance on that matter. It has wrongly been suggested that the loss of the separate charitable good cause will cause voluntary and community sector organisations to lose out.
	We fully recognise the vital role played by voluntary and community sector organisations in our society. Such organisations have benefited enormously from the success of the national lottery and we are determined that that should continue. The Big Lottery Fund has given an undertaking that 60 to 70 per cent. of its funding will go directly to voluntary and community sector organisations. That is a significantly higher proportion than has been the case under the New Opportunities Fund and the Community Fund combined.
	At the moment, only the Community Fund's share of the money—16.6 per cent. overall or 33.3 per cent. of the Big Lottery Fund half—is allocated to charitable expenditure. The Big Lottery Fund's undertaking will ensure that, in future, voluntary and community sector organisations can count on twice as much—I repeat, twice as much—money as before.
	Much has been made of the nature and ownership of the undertaking. Let us be clear about that now. The "Oxford English Dictionary" defines an undertaking as
	"a formal pledge or promise to do something".
	That is exactly what the undertaking amounts to; a formal pledge or promise that 60 to 70 per cent. of Big Lottery Fund money will go directly to voluntary and community sector organisations. By any standard, that is a huge increase compared with the moneys going to those organisations now. The undertaking has been given by the boards of the Community Fund and the New Opportunities Fund—now operating as the Big Lottery Fund—not the Government. We fully support the undertaking but we do not need to repeat it or to enshrine it in the Bill.
	We have heard much during this debate about the need for less prescription and less Government control. It has been said that lottery distributors should be independent and make their own decisions, free from Government interference. But when it suits the Opposition for something to be prescribed by theGovernment, their fears about compromised independence seem to evaporate. They are happy for the Big Lottery Fund to spend 50 per cent. of all lottery good cause money without further recourse to Parliament, but they do not trust the fund to deliver on a formal pledge to the voluntary and community sector.
	I believe that the Big Lottery Fund has done everything possible to show that it intends to deliver on its undertaking and to do so in a transparent and accountable way. The fund has worked closely with key voluntary and community sector stakeholders to develop the definition of voluntary and community sector organisations for the purposes of dispensing the 60 to 70 per cent. undertaking. It has invited key stakeholders to a lunch on 16 February to review the progress that has been made and to discuss further guidance on what will be funded under the definition. The Big Lottery Fund has already said that it will ask independent auditors to monitor where its funding has been going, and that the results will be published in the fund's annual report, which will be laid before Parliament.
	The undertaking to the voluntary and community sector is unique. No other type of organisation is guaranteed a percentage of lottery funding. The undertaking will ensure that voluntary and community sector organisations benefit as much, if not more, from the lottery in future as they do now. There is no question but that the Big Lottery Fund will deliver on its formal pledge. I am not persuaded of the need to include provisions on this matter in the Bill, and I hope that amendment No. 4 will not be pressed to a vote.
	Amendment No. 5 would add to the list of people whom the Secretary of State must consult before making a prescribed expenditure order
	"bodies (other than public or local authorities) whose activities are not carried on for profit",
	—that is, the voluntary and community sector. We would certainly expect to consult widely with representatives of the voluntary and community sector before making any orders. Although the amendment seems to assume that representatives of the voluntary and community sector are the only people with a legitimate interest, we would also want to consult other groups, for example local authorities and, importantly now, social enterprises. So we require a degree of flexibility in our approach.
	There is a statutory requirement to consult the Big Lottery Fund and the devolved Administrations because, unlike representatives of the voluntary and community sector, they are directly affected. I am aware that precedents of a sort exist in certain other legislation requiring consultation with particular groups of people. However, each piece of legislation is considered on its own merits, and what is right in one case is not necessarily right for what will become the National Lottery Act 2006.
	Instead of focusing on what is not in this Bill, I think we should look at the bigger picture. The Government are of course already obliged to comply with Cabinet Office guidance on consultations, and with the requirements of the compact. I explained this point in great detail in Committee. We have shown our good faith in consulting recently on the interim order and directions for the New Opportunities Fund. Indeed, we made a change directly as a result of the helpful comments we received from the National Council for Voluntary Organisations.
	The Big Lottery Fund itself is consulting closely with voluntary sector and other stakeholders on, among other things, the 60 to 70 per cent. undertaking, additionality reporting proposals, and general programme development. The Government will continue to consult widely, not because a statutory requirement says that we must, but because we think that that is a good way of doing business. That is the real safeguard, and I therefore hope that amendment No. 5 will not be pressed to a vote.
	Finally we come to amendment No. 11, which would provide that the Big Lottery Fund must "take account of" rather than "comply with" directions given to it by the Secretary of State under new section 36E, inserted by clause 14 of the Bill. As I explained in Committee, all Lottery distributors are required to comply with directions about financial and operational matters; the points set out in new section 36E(3). I can see no good reason why the Big Lottery Fund should be treated any differently.
	Financial directions are designed to protect public money and incorporate controls similar to those applying to all non-departmental public bodies through their financial memorandums. The requirements in section 26 of the 1993 Act are exactly the same as those placed on the Big Lottery Fund by proposed new section 36E(3).
	Concern is perhaps centred more on the power in proposed new section 36E(2) to issue policy directions. The powers have been drafted as they have in order to bring together the different regimes of control that existed over the Big Lottery Fund's predecessor bodies in a coherent way. A child can be expected to demonstrate the characteristics of both its parents, not just one. The Big Lottery Fund will therefore have characteristics, both in terms of control and framework, of both the Community Fund, which makes up one third of the money, and the New Opportunities Fund, which makes up two thirds of the money.
	I should perhaps comment on proposed new section 36E(2)(a), which I know is a source of concern, albeit misplaced. The provision allows the Secretary of State to specify persons to whom the Big Lottery Fund may or may not make grants. I can give the House a categorical assurance that the purpose of the provision is not to intervene in individual grants or to choose between voluntary organisations. Its purpose is to enable Ministers to specify particular outcomes and priorities for the Big Lottery Fund related to specific groups of people, such as young people, as we have done in the interim and illustrative directions. We have given repeated commitments that we will adopt a light touch on the direction of the Big Lottery Fund.
	We have put our money where our mouth is on the issue of new interim policy directions for the New Opportunities Fund and Community Fund. We have also made available illustrative directions, using the powers set out in the Bill. Both the interim and illustrative directions are very different from the type of directions issued in the past to the New Opportunities Fund. They neither prescribe how the funding outcomes agreed with Government should be delivered nor preclude the funding of other worthwhile priorities. They will allow the fund full scope to make decisions on programmes, choose delivery mechanisms, identify partners and select projects.
	I cannot, of course, guarantee that if one of the Opposition parties were in power it would not seek to exercise the powers in a different way. This Government, however, have shown by their words and actions that we intend to direct the Big Lottery Fund with a very light touch. I therefore hope that my comments will reassure hon. Members, and that the amendment will be withdrawn.

Mark Field: I am afraid that that is wishful thinking on the part of the Minister.
	First, I want to thank the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) for her kind words of welcome. Clearly, I am far too gallant to continue the conversation that I had with the Minister about ages. Suffice it to say, however, that the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire is the youngest Member of the House, and the only one to have been born in the 1980s. At some point in the future, a Member who was born in the 1980s will be seen as an old Member; perhaps she will be in that position in several decades' time.
	In relation to the amendments, I must confess that I am not terribly satisfied by the Minister's responses. He made a robust case—as robust as he was in Committee—but we remain concerned about the excessive prescription and emphasis on compliance. Subject to your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we want to press amendments Nos. 2 and 11, about which we feel strongly, to the vote. We will not press the other amendments in the group to the vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The House divided: Ayes 174, Noes 262.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 8
	 — 
	Reallocation of funds

Mark Field: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 5, line 41, leave out clause 8.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 6, in page 6, line 7, leave out 'order' and insert
	'appropriate subsection of section 23.'.
	No. 7, in page 6, line 8, at end insert—
	'(2A)   An order under this section may not prevent a body from meeting commitments it has made to provide funds in accordance with any agreed timescale.'.
	No. 9, in page 6, line 21, leave out clause 9.

Mark Field: Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 are designed to prevent a reallocation of funds that would result in current commitments not being kept or being delayed by force. The impact on projects of breaking commitments or delaying funding could be catastrophic. Problems with lottery funding could also lead to a loss of matched funding, which would be disastrous for the distributors concerned.
	We were delighted to receive backing from the National Campaign for the Arts in tabling these amendments. It recognises that the intention behind providing the power to transfer money between distributors is to encourage a reduction in balances, and we accept that there is no intention that this power be misused. It also recognises that there are powerful reasons both for and against providing the imperative drastically to reduce distributors' balances. On the one hand, it is important that organisations receive money as quickly as possible; on the other, we should be wary of creating a situation in which distributors cannot be fully responsible for their financial planning. The uncertainty that that would create would be felt at the level of individual organisations, which could have the money allocated to their projects removed due to a transfer of money to another distributor.
	In Committee, the Minister said that the Government had said that they would not exercise the power in a way that would threaten, or put into doubt, any commitment on the part of a distributor from which they proposed transferring a fund balance, and that he was happy to repeat that undertaking. We believe, however, that no convincing reason has been given as to why such a provision cannot be included in the Bill. We recognise that not all aspects of policy can, need or should be included in legislation. However, as the Minister is aware and as we said several times in Committee, the lottery is intended to promote and enable the good work carried out by thousands of organisations. They deserve no less than an absolute guarantee from the Government that promised funds will be delivered. We believe that Amendment No. 7 would secure that undertaking, and we ask all parts of the House to support it.
	I appreciate that time is tight and that the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) would like to say a few words, so if I may I shall canter through our amendments Nos. 6 and 8. The former seeks to change clause 8 by replacing the word "order" with
	"appropriate subsection of section 23."
	Clause 8 enables the Secretary of State to reallocate funds to different bodies without changing the purpose of funding. For example, the Big Lottery Fund could be authorised to spend some of the money allocated for arts or national heritage, instead of Arts Council England or the National Heritage Memorial Fund doing so. Section 23 of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 sets out the various distributing bodies. The Bill as originally drafted provided for distribution by a different body, as specified in section 23. Amendment No. 6 confines the ability to reallocate funds between distribution bodies to those that are in the same category, so reallocation could take place between Arts Council England and the Scottish Arts Council, for example, as both are included under section 23(1) of the 1993 Act. However, the amendment would not allow a reallocation from Arts Council England to, for example, the Big Lottery Fund.
	We believe that there is no good reason why the BLF, which, as the Minister said only minutes ago, will have some 50 per cent. of the moneys in any event, should be able to redistribute the remaining arts, sports or heritage moneys. In practice, our amendment provides that the funds of the Heritage Lottery Fund and the national lottery charity fund cannot be reallocated. That is the right way forward, particularly given that the BLF will account for some 50 per cent. of all allocatable funds.
	Amendment No. 9 would delete clause 9, which makes a change that, although apparently technical, will have a substantial impact on the good causes. Currently, the national debt commissioners invest moneys that are not immediately needed by distributing bodies, under section 32 of the 1993 Act. The interest received is paid back to the distributing body whose money it is.
	Clause 9 will put that interest into a general lottery pot to be distributed among all the distributing bodies on the original proportionate basis. Those bodies funding projects with long lead-in times, such as major arts or heritage projects—like some of the projects in my constituency, which the Minister may have been too polite to mention earlier—will lose more interest on their funds than they will get back in the redistribution.
	Clause 9 is an important mechanism for transferring money from heritage and lottery causes to the Big Lottery Fund, and imperils existing funding commitments. That was made clear in the Culture, Media and Sport Committee report on the reform of the national lottery. The Committee received significant evidence from the Heritage Lottery Fund that all the money currently held in the lottery national distribution fund, and £188 million extra, was not being badly managed but had already been allocated.
	I hope that the Minister will give some thought to these amendments, as we are concerned about the reallocation proposals. I appreciate that time is tight, and that he might not be able to deal with all the points in full. If that is the case, he may prefer to do so in writing at some point. However, these are important issues and they go to the heart of the concern that the Secretary of State is gaining ever more power to prescribe. We believe that that is the wrong way to go.

Jo Swinson: I, too, am aware of the pressure of time, so I shall be brief. First, I want to place it on record that my party supports amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 8, but I have one question for the Minister in respect of amendment No. 9, which would delete clause 9 from the Bill. We believe that clause 9 would be to the detriment of the Heritage Lottery Fund and cause it to lose an estimated £15 million a year. On Second Reading, the Minister said that nothing in the Bill would allow money to be taken from heritage and spent on something else. In Committee, however, he said that my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) was right to think that heritage would lose out from interest accrued on large balances, as that interest would be distributed. Will the Minister clarify those apparently conflicting statements?

Richard Caborn: I am sure that the House will be aware of all the pubic concern over the past five years about the high level of national lottery funds' balances. On television one night, I even had to defend those massive balances to Jeremy Paxman. The National Audit Office concluded in July 2004 that money held in the distribution fund was
	"not delivering the intended public benefit".
	The Public Accounts Committee concluded last October that
	"the public benefit was delivered only when the money was spent in the community".
	However, I can tell the House that the Government began to discuss the problems in earnest in 2001.
	With these amendments, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats want to defend the status quo, and to keep money idle when it should be out in the community. As early as 2002, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State took the initiative and set the specific objective that the overall balances of the distributing bodies should be halved. Under our watch, those balances have since fallen by more than one third, from more than £3.5 billion to £2.25 billion. That is a significant achievement.
	However, the overall balance has not fallen as far as we would have liked, as Opposition Members have not been reluctant to point out. The PAC report also suggested that progress in that regard should be faster.
	Clause 8 gives the Government another tool in the armoury for reducing the balances. The Opposition should not criticise our progress in reducing the balances when amendment No. 8 would deny us further powers to speed up that reduction.

Mark Field: We are asking only that the Minister ensure that the balances are reduced. That is what we want to happen, but we also want the interest balance to go to projects to which money has already been allocated, rather than into the Big Lottery Fund. That is the purpose behind the amendments.

Richard Caborn: I will come to that point, because it was covered in a letter that I sent to the hon. Member for Bath.
	Clause 8 will insert a new section 29A into the National Lottery etc. Act 1993, creating a reserve power—
	It being Five o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [14 June 2005].
	Amendment negatived.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker then proceeded to put the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Clause 14
	 — 
	Functions

Amendment proposed: No. 11, in page 9, line 13, leave out 'comply with' and insert 'take account of'.—[Mr. Mark Field.]
	The House divided: Ayes 171, Noes 259.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Order for Third Reading read.

Richard Caborn: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	I suppose that this would be a good time to thank all those who have been involved in the passage of the Bill, so I start by thanking the members of the Committee and all hon. Members who contributed on Report and, indeed, on Second Reading back in the summer. I especially thank the hon. Members for East Devon (Mr. Swire) and for Bath (Mr. Foster), who led for the Opposition in Committee and, in the latter case, on Report. Both hon. Members were nothing but dogged in their determination to test me on certain points. Hawkeye, as the hon. Member for Bath is now called, must undertake midnight reading of explanatory memorandums to ensure that everything is right with that as well. Of course, the doggedness of the hon. Member for East Devon actually paid off, and I would seriously like to congratulate him on his promotion to shadow Secretary of State. As I said earlier, I welcome the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) to his post and have no doubt that we will clash over the Dispatch Box in the future.
	The National Lottery Bill has been debated for a long time, as the hon. Member for Bath said. When we look at legislation in great detail, it is easy to lose sight—as we sometimes do in Committee—of the overarching principles. The Bill will allow money to go to the good causes that are funded by the lottery. The formal creation of the Big Lottery Fund out of the merger of the Community Fund and the New Opportunities Fund, and the dissolution of the Millennium Commission, will yield a predicted £6 million to £7 million a year more. That money will be available to be spent across a range of good causes. It is good to be able to say to our constituents that more money will be available. We all know of many examples in our constituencies whereby lottery funding has made a difference to the lives of individuals and, on many occasions, to communities as a well. Once the Bill is passed, we can look forward to our constituencies receiving even more money from lottery funding and to the lottery as a whole becoming more open and responsive to those who play it.
	By enabling the public to have a say on lottery awards and the awards made in their communities, we will build on their confidence in the lottery. I can only reiterate that people vote with their feet—or their pockets—and if that can be taken as a sign, then the lottery is in good health. I said in Committee that the lottery came on to the statute book under a Conservative Administration. We have modernised it, and it is something of which we can all be proud. The lottery is now an institution. It is well respected, which is why people continue to play it. All the indications that we got from the consultation are that it is well respected and is doing a good job.
	There have even been lottery funds for the constituency of the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker). The heroes return programme allows people who saw active service during world war two to fund commemorative visits. Of his constituents, it enabled six veterans, one widow, three spouses and seven carers to travel to France. That is what the lottery is all about. It can make all the difference to such brave people. Although the programme received a small amount, it probably changed, or at least enriched, their lives in a way that nothing else could.
	The Bill exemplifies what we always say: that the lottery has been, and will continue to be, independent of the Government. It also paves the way for a streamlined and easier application process for lottery grants with the one-entrance approach. Stephen Dunmore and the staff at the Big Lottery Fund are working hard to ensure that once an application is made, it gets to the right department in an efficient way.
	Under the Bill, the Government will take a lighter touch at the highest level on directing the way in which lottery money is spent. In addition, through the Bill, we will underline our commitment to ensuring that lottery money gets out of the door and into communities where it can do good as fast as possible.

Peter Bone: When I was canvassing a few years ago, I knocked on a door that was opened by someone who said, "You Tories are wonderful", which was not the usual response at the time. He continued, "You brought in the national lottery and we won £50,000."
	However, my serious point is that two villages in my constituency, Wollaston and Irchester, want to build a community hall. They have been turned down by the lottery, and I do not understand why. Does the Minister think that the Bill will make it easier for them?

Richard Caborn: Very much so. I hope that the one-door approach to the Big Lottery Fund will help those villages. It will be able to solicit applications and give advice, which will also help such applications. The lottery has evolved over the decade or so in which it has been in operation, and it is now sensitive to such needs. I am not saying that it is perfect, because it will not be, but we will continue to review it against the background of the consultation. The Big Lottery Fund fits in with the public mood. It is important that it is transparent and has credibility and integrity, because then people will continue to play it. That is why it is the great institution that it is. All in all, the Bill creates a framework that will allow the lottery to continue to be modern, dynamic and successful, so I am delighted to commend it to the House.

Mark Field: It is a great pleasure to make my Front Bench debut speaking on the culture and arts brief. I noticed with horror, however, that in my previous incarnation as the shadow Minister for London and the shadow Financial Secretary to the Treasury I confessed on my website to a cultural expertise that extended only to a passion for rock and pop music. I will have to do better in future.

Hugo Swire: It is a start.

Mark Field: Indeed, but I will have to do better in future, not least because the Royal Opera house and the Royal Albert hall are both in my constituency. As the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) and the Minister pointed out, the Bill's passage has been long and drawn out. Second Reading took place as long ago as June, and the Committee stage meandered through October and November. As a conscientious Opposition, we have endeavoured to table reasonable amendments, and I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Windsor (Adam Afriyie), for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) and for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker) for their sterling efforts in Committee.
	While some progress has been made, we remain concerned about a number of provisions in the Bill that undermine the fundamental principles of the national lottery. We shall continue to oppose in the strongest terms the vastly increased Government control and direction over the distribution of lottery funds. It is unacceptable that money should be withheld from the original deserving causes to be channelled into areas for which state funding should be preserved. Furthermore, the lottery was set up to improve the daily quality of life for all people in Britain by earmarking funds for activities that might otherwise be neglected in the everyday distribution of tax receipts.
	In short, the flagrant breach of the additionality principle has fuelled the public's faltering confidence in the lottery. Controversial awards are always meat and drink to an ever more voracious press, but a strict focus on directing lottery receipts to the arts, heritage, sport and charity would doubtless minimise such criticism. Additionality is a principle that has been widely recognised, and political concern about it took up a significant part of our debates both on Report and in Committee. There is no doubt in our mind that the Big Lottery Fund has been used and, we presume, will continue to be used to replace core Government expenditure. We therefore sought to introduce a new clause that would provide a double lock in an effort to apply the principle that lottery money should not be spent on the services and works that are usually provided by Government. That applies not only to the Secretary of State in her activities but to the distributing bodies in their strategic plans. The additionality principle is central to all that is best about the national lottery, and it is highly regrettable that the Government have sought to flout it.
	It was understood by Members on both sides of the House when the original lottery legislation proceeded through Parliament that Governments of whatever party should maintain an arm's length relationship with lottery operations and, perhaps more important, all aspects of grant distribution. Since 1997, however, there has been a systematic and presumably focus group-led strategy to allocate lottery money to projects whose funding should be the responsibility of the Government. When the Millennium Commission was wound up in 2001, its one-fifth share of lottery funds was transferred to the New Opportunities Fund, thus accounting for one third of good causes money in health, education and the environment. Inevitably, the strain on the public purse has resulted at the very least in the emergence of a grey area, with health and education funding for projects divided between departmental budgets and New Opportunities Fund expenditure. Expenditure on healthy living centres and a programme to provide cancer equipment in England has taken up almost £400 million of lottery resources, which has been spent on projects that, arguably, should be regarded as mainstream NHS responsibilities. The same applies to the information and communications technology training for teachers and the school librarians initiative and the out-of-school-hours learning programme, which account for a similar aggregate sum in education.
	The Conservatives would like a more transparent system. The Big Lottery Fund has been charged over the past 18 months with the distribution of half the good causes money from the amalgamation of the New Opportunities Fund and the Community Fund. We believe that the latter should be restored, and that by scrapping the Big Lottery Fund we would save some £450 million, which would be released annually for charities, sport, arts and heritage.
	We appreciate the need for a special London Olympic lottery initiative before 2012, but otherwise we favour a system granting 25 per cent. of lottery funding to each of the four pillars of the lottery that I just mentioned. That would help restore confidence in a distribution process that has increasingly become discredited in the eyes of the general public. Indeed, the Conservatives estimate that the four original causes have missed out to the tune of £1.29 billion in the five years to 2004.
	We remain doubtful of the Government's wisdom in inserting clause 19 to widen the definition of charitable expenditure. We hope that a full debate will take place on the matter before the Bill goes to another place.
	Where does the national lottery go from here? I have a small confession to make. I am one of the small minority of people who have never played the national lottery. [Hon. Members: "Shame!"] That is not because of my technical inexpertise, but I have always regarded it with a somewhat puritanical eye.

Richard Caborn: I will take the hon. Gentleman to the nearest newsagent and help him fill in one of the lottery forms.

Mark Field: I will accept that kind offer only if the Minister will also pay the £1 fee that is required for the purchase of such a ticket.
	It has always struck me as somewhat perverse that the tabloid press pillories those who have earned large sums of money in business activity, in contrast to the tabloids' championing of multimillion-pound lottery winners. Only last week in the national newspapers it was reported with distaste that thousands of workers in my City of London constituency were awaiting bonuses of £1 million or more, yet to earn similar sums or multiples of such sums by guessing six numbers on a national lottery ticket is regarded as legitimate and a desirable outcome.
	Although I am not a supporter of what has become a highly progressive tax on lottery players, I believe that the House owes it to those who do play the game to promote transparency in what has become a national institution. Too much control over lottery distribution in the hands of the Secretary of State cannot be a sensible approach to a national lottery that is designed to serve all the people of this country. We shall take urgent steps to restore public confidence in our lottery by reducing both governmental and ministerial interference.

Don Foster: I begin by thanking the Minister yet again. All my speeches this afternoon have begun by thanking the Minister. I have been pondering whether to reproduce and include in the next edition of "Focus" to go round the Bath constituency the Minister's praise in the form of my new nickname, "Hawkeye", and his comments a few minutes ago. I am grateful for his praise and for the fact that he began by thanking a large number of people for their contributions during the lengthy passage of the Bill—we have had almost 60 weeks of opportunity for consideration since its First Reading on 25 November 2004. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will pass on my thanks to his officials, who have been extremely helpful in discussing the Bill with me and with members of the Conservative Front-Bench team.
	We have had a useful debate today. Unfortunately, however, in view of a range of other things that have been going on in and near the Palace of Westminster today, it will get limited coverage. In the House we had reference to sex, we had a statement on drugs, and we have just heard from the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) a revelation about rock 'n' roll. Other things have been going on in the various campaigns for the leadership of my party. I suspect, therefore, that our deliberation on the lottery will not get a great deal of coverage, although I note with interest that the lottery more generally is likely to arouse a great deal of interest, bearing in mind the £85 million jackpot on offer, following nine roll-overs. I understand that tickets are currently selling at the rate of about 100,000 an hour, so whatever our deliberations about good causes, we know that they will get more money in the near future.
	Notwithstanding the limited publicity the debate has been important, and we have made good progress. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have praised the distributors' work on the lottery and pointed out that nearly 200,000 causes, many of which are universally popular, have benefited from lottery funding. We have discussed how lottery distributors are making it easier to apply for lottery grants, although I have argued that more progress is needed. Work remains to be done to persuade the public about some of the grants and not to believe everything that they read in their newspapers. Earlier, I referred to the claim in today's Daily Mail that St. Paul's cathedral has had to pull out of lottery funding for certain reasons, which have turned out to be entirely incorrect.
	The distributors still have a lot of work to do publicising their good work. Although we did not persuade the Minister on this point, we have discussed the importance of ensuring that the lottery distributors, while promoting the good causes in which they are involved, do not promote playing the lottery, for the very good reason that that is not the most effective way to give money to good causes. As I have said, if someone buys a lottery ticket for £1, only 28p goes to a good cause. If someone gives £1 directly to a good cause, however, that good cause will receive £1.28 with gift aid. If one wants to give money to good causes, it is more efficient to give directly.
	We have made progress on a number of issues, and the Minister has made a number of welcome further assurances today. That said, unfortunately we have not made sufficient progress in a number of areas, the most important of which is additionality—ensuring that the Government do not interfere in the use of lottery funding—to which the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster rightly referred. When the national lottery was initiated, the then Prime Minister, Sir John Major, made it clear that he did not want to see the Government getting their sticky little fingers on lottery money, and the current Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and the Minister have repeated that assurance. On Second Reading, the Minister said that a provision on additionality should be enshrined on the face of the Bill, but the Government have refused to include such a provision, which is one key reason why we will not support the Bill on Third Reading. We think that the distinction between Government spending and lottery spending is crucial.
	We are equally concerned about some other aspects of the Bill, not least the powers of the Secretary of State. Line after line of the Bill refers to giving powers to the Secretary of State, which concerns us deeply. The Secretary of State's powers should be reduced, not increased, and that is particularly true of the powers on the redistribution of funds, which we discussed on Report.
	My hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) made an excellent 47-second speech in which she asked the Minister a question that he still has not answered. On Second Reading, he said:
	"Nothing in the Bill will allow money to be taken from heritage and spent on something else."—[Official Report, 14 June 2005; Vol. 434, c. 169.]
	whereas, in Committee, he said:
	"if the hon. Member for Bath is asking me whether it"—
	heritage—
	"will lose out on interest accrued from large balances, the answer is yes, because that will be distributed."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 27 October 2005; c. 150.]
	The Minister cannot have it both ways—either heritage is protected or it is not. The reality is that heritage is not protected because the Government will be held to interfere in the way in which interest and balances are used.

Richard Caborn: The question was this: do we allow those who have large balances to profit by them? Good causes profit because the interest that is accrued is then redistributed, as in the case of distributions to sport and the arts. I gave two reassurances. Money that had been allocated from the lottery to the various distributors would be received, and no scheme would be stopped; it was simply that the balances would be reduced. There was a guarantee that once that expenditure had been confirmed it would continue, and they would not lose one penny piece of the money that had been allocated to the distributors from the lottery, that would have been accrued by interest. We believed that it was wrong to profit by that, which is why we distributed it in that way.

Don Foster: I am grateful to the Minister for repeating what he said earlier—

Richard Caborn: I wrote to the hon. Gentleman.

Don Foster: Indeed. What the Minister said in that letter, what he said in a previous speech and what he has said today is that it is important that as far as possible we ensure that lottery distributors are getting the money that they bring in out to good causes as quickly as possible and that we keep the balances as low as possible. Nobody disagrees with the Minister about that. However, it does not deal with the point that my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire and I put to him: either there is something in the Bill that will allow money to be taken from heritage or there is not. He cannot have it both ways. [Interruption.] The reality is that the mechanism that he just described means that the money will be taken away—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have a series of sedentary comments.

Don Foster: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for that protection from the Minister, who has until now been exceedingly courteous and kind to me. I do not know why I have suddenly riled him.
	During our deliberations about this issue, it was pointed out that there are differences in the way in which   distributors operate because of the significant differences in the nature of the projects that they are engaged in. That is why some of us are concerned about the Secretary of State's power to redistribute those funds.
	I continue to worry about an issue on which we have had no significant debate—the structure of the board that will oversee all this work. It is possible that it could be chaired by somebody who is there to represent a particular country, which could lead to a conflict of interest. I am also worried that the new definition of charitable expenditure potentially blurs the boundaries between public services and third sector good causes.
	For those reasons, we cannot support the Bill on Third Reading. None of that should detract from the fact that we have made good progress during its passage. I hope that if we are not successful in defeating the Bill at this stage, progress will continue to be made in another place. There are some good things in the Bill; unfortunately, there are sufficient bad things to cause us to vote against it.

Charles Walker: When the lottery was introduced, it was a great, noble and aspirational idea. It was a little like a marvellous African bull elephant in its prime. However, the Bill has brought it low. Introducing the measure is a little like shooting that beautiful bull elephant in the leg. It will not kill it—the bull elephant will run off into the undergrowth, settle for a few months and then return. It will have recovered but it will have a limp and not be quite as wonderful as it was.
	The Minister claims that the lottery is a great national institution. It was, but I fear that the Bill makes it simply another institution. That is a great shame. The measure gives central Government far too much control over the destination of lottery money. The Minister claims that the Big Lottery Fund will be kept at arm's length but it will be the hand at the end of the Government's arm. In essence, it will be a dead hand. The Bill dissipates so many of the aspects that make the lottery a great national institution.
	Too much money is being siphoned off to fund central Government expenditure on health, education and the environment. Again, that is a great shame. The Minister gave a wonderful, uplifting example of what the national lottery has done in Broxbourne, where it was used to take second world war veterans overseas to France, to places that they had perhaps not visited for 60 years. That is what the national lottery is for. It is for special things—village greens, community halls, the arts and museums. It is not for cancer and heart scanners—the national health service is for that. The lottery is for those people in Broxbourne to whom the Minister referred. I sincerely hope that he and the Government remember that.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
	The House divided: Ayes 246, Noes 159.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Bill read the Third time, and passed.

EUROPEAN UNION DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

Energy Efficiency

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 10368/05, Green Paper on Energy Efficiency or "Doing More with Less"; and supports the Government's objective of securing an ambitious, but realistic, Action Plan on Energy Efficiency in 2006.—[Mr. Watson.]
	Question agreed to.

THE SPEAKER'S ABSENCE

Ordered,
	That the Speaker have leave of absence on Wednesday 1st March for the purpose of attending the opening of the new building of the National Assembly for Wales.—[Mr. Watson.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
	That, at the sitting on Thursday 26th January, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr. Edward Leigh relating to Public Accounts not later than three hours after their commencement; proceedings may continue after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.— [Mr. Watson.]

PETITION
	 — 
	Rail Link

Iain Wright: I rise to present a petition from residents and businesses in Hartlepool and others for a direct rail link between Hartlepool, Sunderland and London King's Cross. The rail link is supported by Hartlepool borough council, Hartlepool Economic Forum, One NorthEast, the local newspaper—the Hartlepool Mail—and all the local authorities throughout the north-east. They are all confident that such a link would boost economic development in Hartlepool and would benefit the whole north-east. The lead signature on the petition is that of Mr. Michael Johnson of Benmore road, Hartlepool, and 1,242 other people signed it in just three days.
	The petition states:
	To the House of Commons.
	The Petition of residents and businesses of Hartlepool and others,
	Declares that there should be a direct rail link from Hartlepool to London Kings Cross, as proposed by Grand Central Trains. There is a need for a direct link at a reasonable price to help to boost Hartlepool's economic regeneration and development and to allow the town's residents to visit other areas of the country at a price which is financially viable.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons consider this wide support and urge the Government to ensure that the Office of the Rail Regulator considers the issues raised in this petition and the petitioners support for Grand Central Trains' bid when the bid is evaluated.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

FAILED ASYLUM SEEKERS (SCOTLAND)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Watson.]

Eric Joyce: My aim in raising the issue of the removal of asylum seekers in Scotland is to put a United Kingdom matter in a Scottish context, and to ask my hon. Friend the Minister a couple of questions about the progress of Government policy.
	I want to mention some resources that I found extremely useful when trying to understand a matter that directly affects relatively few people as yet, but which most people place quite high on their list of priorities when it comes to public policy. The ATLAS partnership is based in Glasgow city council. ATLAS—Action for Training and Learning for Asylum Seekers—was set up to help organisations in Glasgow to respond to the dispersal of asylum seekers to Glasgow, which started in 2000. The partnership is led by Glasgow city council, and includes Falkirk college in my constituency.
	I find ATLAS interesting for two reasons. First, it has produced a publication, "Asylum Matters from Scotland", which reads very well and is a useful resource. Secondly, the way in which people perceive ATLAS's role—whether they consider helping asylum seekers to find training while they await judgments to be a central or a peripheral aspect of the asylum process—will tell them something about their perception of the overall concept of asylum.
	The Scottish Executive have produced a number of excellent documents describing the way in which asylum seekers awaiting a decision are supported by local authorities and other agencies. One report, "Asylum Seekers in Scotland"—which does more or less what it says on the tin—was produced by Barclay, Bowes, Ferguson et al at the university of Stirling in 2003. Leaving aside the happy coincidence that I am a graduate of that excellent university and the fact that it is on the doorstep of my constituency, I found the document measured, informative and useful. Since it was written in 2003, and as subsequent practice in Scotland appears to conform quite closely to its main tenets, I think that the document was influential in framing public policy at both Executive level in Scotland and local authority level.
	I want to mention the Central Scotland Racial Equality Council, which is based in my constituency.
	It being Six o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
	Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Watson.]

Eric Joyce: Dispersal in Scotland is only to Glasgow, of course, but there are from time to time people seeking decisions on asylum who appear in my constituency and who in one way or another are sponsored by local organisations. The Central Scotland Racial Equality Council therefore interfaces with the issue on a fairly regular basis.
	As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, while his Department and its agencies liaise with local authorities and other regional assets in England, in Scotland the picture is a little different. Scotland, uniquely in the UK, legislates for all the areas of policy devolved to it through an Act of Parliament, the Scotland Act 1998. That includes education, health and social services. As those services play important roles in supporting people awaiting asylum decisions, and as the media pay close attention both to public dialogue around those policy areas in general and to the issue of asylum, there is a tendency among some in the media and public life in Scotland to see matters of asylum and immigration through the prism of locally provided services.
	There are many good aspects to that perspective, if I may put it that way, and the small size of Scotland in comparison with England means that those involved in the local provision of services can have a more direct relationship with legislators in those policy areas. Many more give evidence to parliamentary Committees, for example. Proportionately speaking, one has a 10 or 15 times greater chance in Scotland of doing that, so there is a bit of a closer link between the two.
	Here, I make a distinction between the subtleties and trends of debate among those with a particular interest in the areas of asylum and immigration, and Scottish public attitudes in general. I have surveyed a great many of my constituents and find that, for the large part, Falkirk folk do not deviate from UK norms in their views on asylum and immigration. In my experience, most people want an asylum system that is well administered and an immigration system that is right for the UK, which is fair and designed to benefit economically both the UK and those who settle here through our immigration system. It is true that people often confuse asylum and immigration, and I wish to say a word or two about that in a moment. The point I make here is that in Scotland, for good or ill, it seems that sometimes the opinions of those who have special experience of a given area diverge to a higher degree from public opinion than is the case across the UK as a whole.
	Whether or not my perception accords with reality, it is the case that there is a lively public debate among those closer to the issue of asylum removals in Scotland, and that is reflected in media coverage. I am struck by the extent to which debate in Scotland on the matter of asylum is anchored around the Scottish Parliament and its Members rather than the UK Parliament and its Members. As I have already noted, that is because of the Scottish Parliament's legislative powers in the areas that support those awaiting asylum decisions. In my view, one effect of that trend is that MPs tend to be sent material by interest groups that looks pre-cooked; it begins to look rather polemical. It has already passed through a political filter, as it were. By the time it reaches us here in the House, it is almost impossible, in some cases, to have meaningful dialogue.
	I have also been struck by the fact that sometimes, although not always, the crux decision points faced by Ministers in this place are evaded, not always intentionally, by some involved in public debate in Scotland. I believe that there is room for a more productive relationship between Members of this House and Scottish groups with an interest in those issues.

Pete Wishart: The hon. Gentleman is redressing the fact that this matter has not been debated thoroughly in this House. I think that he will recognise that there is a raging public debate in Scotland, particularly when the removal of asylum seekers' children is involved. He has talked about people who are involved in this public debate. Perhaps he recognises the words of the children's commissioner for Scotland, Dr. Marshall:
	"I've become increasingly distressed by the inhumane methods of removal of children and families from Scotland. What can happen is immigration officers and police, big groups of them, 11 to 14, go to a family's house at seven o'clock in the morning . . . in bullet proof vests".
	She continues:
	"they handcuff the parents in front of the children and then they remove them . . . on long journeys".
	Surely he recognises that when such activities happen the public in Scotland have every right to be concerned and anxious about what is going on.

Eric Joyce: I studied Dr. Marshall's remarks closely, and I think that she could have chosen her words better. I am not sure whether what she said is a fair reflection of the hard work of officials who deal with such very difficult removals. I am about to address one or two of the dilemmas that have to be faced but which are sometimes not being faced in the public debate in Scotland. That subject lies at the core of my speech.
	I chose to discuss removals in this debate because in any discussion about asylum policy, that is the point at which reality bites. That is the hard edge, and the last option—but most people would agree that if we are to have a system at all, removals sometimes have to be made. Although I have encountered few people who do not accept the need for an asylum and immigration policy, and therefore the need, as a last resort, for removals, some organisations oppose every removal as a matter of course.
	I am not in a position to say whether any given removal is valid or not, and of course no system is infallible. Yet the adoption of a de facto organisational policy decision to oppose every removal as a matter of course, as sometimes happens, is incompatible with the acceptance of the requirement for an immigration policy. It is hard to have intelligent dialogue in such circumstances.
	Some people in Scotland argue for a different immigration policy for Scotland. Leaving aside the implications for the UK as a constitutional entity, I still have to say that such arguments are rarely accompanied by an acceptance that that would require a means of controlling movement between what would then be two jurisdictions—in effect, a border mechanism. That argument is impracticable to the point of nonsense, yet it surfaces regularly in Scottish public debate.
	Another contentious point in Scotland—as, of course, in the rest of the UK since 2002—is that those awaiting a decision on asylum are unavailable for work. It is often argued that people should be able to work while awaiting a decision, bringing their skills to help the communities to which most have been dispersed. In Scotland, that means Glasgow. That is an interesting point of view, considering that the Government and the   Scottish Executive fund programmes of work experience and tertiary education for those awaiting a final decision, and in some cases for people presently falling under section 4—those who have had a final decision but are awaiting removal to a country that is not now deemed safe.
	Of course it is desirable that those who are successful in their application should be as well prepared for their new life as possible, but it seems to me dangerous to make a leap from there to factoring in skills to the asylum decision, as is often argued in Scotland. It must be frustrating in the extreme for people awaiting decisions who have valuable skills not to be able to use those skills, to all our benefit, in the meantime—but to argue that the Government should factor those skills in to the asylum decision would be anathema in human rights terms.The purpose of an asylum system is to ensure that someone fleeing for their life from a dangerous regime is protected and able to carry on their life safely in a new country. Any suggestion that applicants' skills should in any way be a factor in the decision would be wholly wrong. It is fundamental to the human rights principles that underpin the concept of asylum that all applicants should be assessed as equals, on the basis of the threat that they may face in their country of origin.
	The meaning of the word "refugee", at least in terms of public policy in Scotland, is often misunderstood. For the purposes of asylum policy, a refugee is a successful asylum applicant. However, in my experience such people do not always want to be labelled in that way. Why should they? They want to get on with their new lives as full and equal members of their own local communities. That is not to say that support services should not exist for those who want them—quite the opposite, in fact. However, the term refugee, I find, is usually used in public debate to mean something closer to the wider dictionary definition, and includes those moving from state to state for economic reasons. Of course, the UK Government, like all others, recognise the huge benefit that such economic movement brings—a recognition that is formalised in the form of an immigration policy. But obfuscation through misuse of the terms "asylum", "immigration" and "refugee" removes the clarity so important for intelligent public dialogue.
	I conclude by asking the Minister to confirm that he has, over time, had effective dialogue with the Scottish Executive and other UK bodies representing more local populations—perhaps on a regional basis, or perhaps on a more specific basis. Is that helping to form his views and, ultimately, Government policy, on the whole process of dealing with those who seek asylum in this country?

Tony McNulty: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Mr. Joyce) for his measured and well thought-through contribution, and also, in the traditional way, I congratulate him on securing the debate. From my perspective as Minister with responsibility for immigration, I agree with him—I believe that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), too, concurred in this—that we do not discuss such matters sufficiently, or with sufficient depth and maturity, in this Chamber. In part, that is because, until the very recent past, public policy has let the public down somewhat in terms of how these issues are debated. Such debates have always been accompanied by a degree of xenophobia and hysteria that prevent us from getting to the core of the complex issues that should be subject to serious public discourse. I therefore thank my hon. Friend for affording us the opportunity to have such a discussion today.
	I also concur with many of the specific points that my hon. Friend made. In pursuing what I would term a robust and progressive asylum policy, our starting point is rightly the 1951 convention relating to the status of refugees, which, happily, is subscribed to by nearly all parties in this House. I am still not quite sure about the flip-flop official Opposition, but in time, they will probably restore the 1951 convention to their broad public policy offering, instead of adopting the position that they adopted during the last election.
	If the 1951 convention is our starting point on human rights, which it should be, that implies two outcomes for all those who apply for asylum: security of refugee status, with all that that entails; and failure to meet the terms of the convention leading to an end-point of removal back to their country of origin. That must be the starting point of a robust asylum policy. My hon. Friend is entirely right to say that many in Scotland do not start from that perspective, as I have discovered when discussing these issues, directly and indirectly, with such people. Quite where they start from in terms of a developed asylum policy, I know not. In the context of the 1951 convention, it cannot be right, deliberately or otherwise, but in misguided fashion, to try to persuade those who are in the system and applying for asylum—I certainly do not blame them for doing so—that they have an absolute right to stay here under whatever circumstances, regardless of the merits or otherwise of their case. That is the premise of the campaign to which my hon. Friend has alluded. It is irresponsible and does a disservice to the very applicants whom such people and groups purport to serve.
	If the 1951 convention is our starting point, once someone secures refugee status, collectively—UK Government, local government, the Scottish Executive and others—we should do all that we can to ensure that they are fully integrated into our community on their own terms. We then need to ask whether, in a UK and a regional context—in this case, the regional context is the Scottish Executive and local authorities—there are things that we are doing that we could do far better. My hon. Friend was entirely right in pointing out that I have had some contact—my officials have had far more—with not just Scottish Executive officials, but with local authorities and other organisations and groups in Scotland.
	I start from a twofold premise. First, this is not a devolved matter, so our robust and progressive asylum policy will be implemented UK-wide. Secondly, and as my hon. Friend eloquently pointed out, given the devolution settlement, there are a range of public policy interactions between the UK, the Scottish Executive and local authorities. As a consequence, we should talk with and engage with each other far more readily than we do. Given Scotland's separate legislative and legal framework, I undertook when I was in Glasgow and in Edinburgh—and before then—to explore in detail ways in which we might tweak and bend what is a broad UK policy to take account of that Scottish context.

Pete Wishart: I am pleased that the Minister recognises that the Scottish Executive and Scottish Parliament have a role in immigration, but does he accept that the different UK nations have different immigration requirements? The population in Scotland is falling, whereas the population in London and the south-east is growing. Is there anything that the UK Government can do to put that right? What about children who have become ingrained in communities thanks to the length of the asylum process, but who then are thrust out of the only social context that they have ever known?

Tony McNulty: I accept much of that, but my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk was right to say that the asylum and immigration systems are separate. They have common features, but the 1951 convention does not mean that the asylum system is somehow a disguised form of economic migration. A separate system deals with immigration.
	Although the latest figures show that there has been an upward blip in the population of Scotland, the trend is broadly down. We are working with the Scottish Executive to ameliorate the problem, and all Scottish Members will be aware of the fresh talent initiative and other projects that are designed with that in mind. We are working with the Executive to see how we can address the problem in the context of the devolution settlement.

David Hamilton: Does my hon. Friend the Minister accept that only one or two of Scotland's 32 local authorities have the necessary wherewithal and support networks to look after asylum seekers and those seeking to immigrate? In the rural and semi-rural areas, local MPs and politicians have to deal with a problem that is so big that errors inevitably occur. Much of the support network is good, but there is not much help available in Scotland apart from that offered by local authorities and MPs.
	In addition, there are problems of communication. A constituent of mine in Penicuik in Midlothian has applied to stay in the UK, but a letter sent to the immigration authorities in 2001 did not get a reply until 2005. That does not help matters.

Tony McNulty: I do not know the details of the case, but I should be more than happy to help my hon. Friend if he wants to take it up with me later.
	In implementing a UK asylum system, it is right and proper that we should engage with local agencies and people at a local level, as my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk suggests. That is exactly what we do.
	I went up to Scotland for a couple of days before Christmas, and I made a promise to return once we have looked at some of the very matters raised in this debate. As I have indicated already, they include factors such as the different legal framework in Scotland, which means that some legislation—and especially that which relates to children—is different. We must make sure that we overcome such legislative problems.
	Initiatives and discussions undertaken by the First Minister and his colleagues in the Scottish Executive have prompted us to look at everything that we do in terms of removals. As I said earlier, removals are a quintessential part of a progressive asylum policy, but media coverage that misinforms the public about what is going on is not helpful. I certainly acquit the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) in that regard, but I am fed up with hearing about "dawn raids" when 20 police and immigration officers kick down a door at 3 o'clock in the morning and drag children out of their beds. If any hon. Member, or anyone else who hears or reads this debate, can prove to me definitively that any such event took place, I should be very grateful.
	No removal happens before half-past 6 or 7 o'clock in the morning. Why so early? Well, because it is a guarantee that the family unit to be removed will be together. Nothing happens at 3 o'clock in the morning and children are not dragged from their beds.
	At worst, we have heard stories about riot gear, teargas and other fantasies that do not do the debate much good, do not do the people making that argument much credit and, crucially, do not do much for the applicants and their cases. Things are getting better, but I shall keep my promise to return to Scotland and inform the Scottish Executive and MPs how the interface between local agencies, from local authorities up to the Scottish Executive, is working, especially with regard to children in the specific context of Scotland. Through the Scottish initiative, we need to see how we can improve matters in the broader UK context and that is why this debate is welcome.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk is right that there are many unsung heroes among local authorities and local organisations, such as the ones that he mentioned, that are doing an enormous amount of work with new refugee communities and those who are still at the tail-end of the process and awaiting decisions or final removal.
	I have also had the good fortune to talk with the Scottish Refugee Council. I have yet to arrange—we have tried once, but it has not happened—a separate meeting with the Scottish children's commissioner, although I have met her. I am trying to arrange a meeting with all the children's commissioners to get their perspective on all these matters.
	I have no problem, other than those I have mentioned of sloppy linguistics and fatuous intellectual arguments, about where we are at with this debate and how it fits in with the wider public policy context that has been part of the media coverage in Scotland. I have no problem with people protesting and hurling abuse at me—in fact, they woke me up—as I go to BBC Scotland at about half-past 6 in the morning. However, I do object to people haranguing and harassing, in the guise of public protest, immigration and nationality directorate and immigration service staff at Festival court, day in and day out. Whatever people's objections to the public policy dimension—and it may be their view that if someone comes to this country, on whatever terms and in whatever context, they should be allowed to remain—I do not think that our rich history of public protest justifies the constant abuse and harassment, or at least the perception of it, of public servants who are just doing their job. I have said that in terms to the staff at Festival court.
	I do not think that it is very bright or grown-up of people to lock themselves in or sit in at Festival court, or to superglue the gates or generally disrupt genuine and legitimate business carried out by public servants and the public. I deprecate those who are involved in such activities. I deprecate those who say, perversely, that Strathclyde police should arrest UK immigration officers as they go about their business. We have heard such flights of fancy from particular individuals, but they do not help the debate. As my hon. Friend says, we want to encourage that debate. I want a debate about how we can all do what we want to in order to manage migration and asylum policy. I am not running away from such a debate. That might be unusual for an immigration Minister, but the time is right for such a debate, not least for the population reasons that have been given. I think that both the Executive and others in Scotland are ready for that debate, too. All the rather immature comment about removals is hampering serious debate. None the less, as my hon. Friend suggests, we are looking at the processes in the broader sense, particularly where families with children are involved, in terms of the new asylum model and other general changes in our practice.
	I have said repeatedly in the Scottish media and elsewhere that it cannot be right that people, especially those with children, are in the system for three, four or five years for whatever reason, given the roots that they put down, as the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire suggests. That is especially the case where children have come in at the age of two or three and are five, six, seven or eight by the time that their cases are determined. That cannot be right and we need to change the process and ensure that people get their decisions faster. That is not a reason to stop removals; neither does it challenge their legitimacy as part of a robust asylum policy. Yes, removals must be done very sensitively. Yes, we must work with the other agencies to secure them, as my hon. Friend suggests.
	Again, I have said in the Scottish media that I would like to be the immigration Minister who finally sees an end to enforced removals. I am not apportioning blame or lapsing into using a Daily Mail lexicon in any way, shape or form, but at least part of the delays in the system until now involve the choices made by the individuals in the process. I can understand that if their endgame is that they would rather stay here than leave. Of course, there are sensitivities. Of course, enforced removals are always fraught with difficulties and stress, not least when children are involved. We are looking very seriously at that issue. If we need to change things because of the Scottish dimension, that would be more than appropriate. Part of my task is to ensure that, during my tenure and given what we are doing with managed migration and the new asylum model, we are not simply building up the next wave of cases of people with young children who remain in the system for three, four or five years.

Pete Wishart: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again—he is being very generous with his time—and I am very encouraged by the tone of his remarks. I would encourage him to go further down that road, but does he not feel that the general debate is soured by the way that enforced removals are carried out in Scotland? He is right to identify some of the people who are involved at the fringes of such activity, but the First Minister, the Communities Minister and the children's commissioner also have great concerns about it. What possible improvements can the hon. Gentleman suggest that would be of comfort to them?

Tony McNulty: I would tell all those to whom the hon. Gentleman refers to sit down and work with us in trying to reach a consensus on how to do things better than we do. Enforced removals are part of the process, as I have now said probably to the point of tedium. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is simply not good enough for the children's commissioner—a public official—to talk about inhumane conditions and terrorising children. Again, I said that in terms in the public domain.
	Of course the language, emotions and so on used will be heightened because families and children are involved, but we need to talk in rational terms. The more that we can do with the recently announced package, which has increased the assistance available to those who remove themselves voluntarily, the better. The more that we can get people more broadly to understand what the asylum process is about—rather than confusing it with immigration, which feeds into the public debate, as my hon. Friend suggests—the better. To that end, the head man at Festival court spent the best part of a couple of hours with the girls at Drumchapel school going through how an asylum policy differs from an immigration policy. That sort of public awareness is very important. We need to do more of that work. We also need to turn things round and look at what we are doing in public policy terms with refugees.
	I absolutely applaud all that Glasgow council has sought to do, as I told its leader when I was up there. As everyone knows, that is the main area not just of dispersal but of the asylum seeker population, for want of a better phrase. I have huge praise for what those involved are doing—often, in the early days, in very difficult conditions.
	I implore Scotland as a body politic to talk about these issues. Let us have a proper, legitimate debate about asylum, immigration and all the other concerns about population. We are already revisiting the processes. I will go to Scotland in the next couple of months to report on how far with have got with that, and I am more than happy to engage further in the Scottish dimension of the debate. However, UK asylum policy is rooted in the 1951 convention and our new asylum model is the way forward—
	The motion having been made at Six o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	Adjourned at half-past Six o'clock.